Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Apparently some landlords dont want foreigners such as asylum seekers and migrant workers to live in their property – and this is illegal !
This is how private property became owned by the State.
You have a house. You want to rent YOUR property only to British people.
But the Race Relations Act says that if you dont want Vietnamese Cannabis growers, Polish pissheads, Latvian prostitutes, Albanian gun dealers, Russian gangsters, Jamaican crack dealers or any one of the myriad nationalities involved in crime present in this country to live in your house then that is illegal.
BOLLOCKS.
Its your house.
You should be entitled to only allow people in that property that you want to be in that property.
This is why the State has destroyed the concept of private property with all this politically correct crap.
The principle of private property is that you own that property and you should be allowed to do with as you wish, with one exemption which is if you do something on that property that threatens the life of people such as your neighbours eg you store gallons of petrol on the land.
That is the only legitimate reason for any state to get involved in telling you what to do with your own property.
All these laws should be abolished.
If you own your own property then you should be entitled to do as you wish with it in regards having tenants.
If you dont want whites, blacks, pinks, browns – whatever – in your own property then that should be down to you.
This is why the entire race relations legislation should be scrapped.
Private property is private property.
The whole process of immigration and multi-culturalism required that the law force people to accept foreigners amongst us – or be taken to court under these pathetic laws.
Whilst the government shipped them in – the government then passed laws that forced us to accept them living amongst us.
Those that did not want them in their own property were prosecuted – and this is how multi-culturalism was built – with fear, threats and terror – it was never built with consent, good will and with genuine acceptance.
Multi-culturalism was forced upon our country via the threats of arrest, prosecution and fines.
This is why multi-culturalism will fail – as it was constructed without good will and genuine consent.
The old chestnut about ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ should be met with a big ‘so what ! ‘.
I am half Irish and no doubt some of my relatives were told they couldnt stay in some hotels etc when they came to the UK.
So what.
It was their property and they were free to do as they wish with it.
If that meant my relative had to look for alternative accomodation then – so what. I am sure they were able to cope with the rejection.
Just as BNP members have to face being rejected by the police service, prison service and various trade unions – we just get on with it.
It appears though that rejecting the BNP from such organisations is okay, but individuals saying they dont want foreigners in their own proerty is unlawful.
It appears that some forms of discrimination are lawful and moral, whilst other forms of discrimination arent.
The law is therefore an ass.
These laws were designed to facilitate the imposition of multi-culturalism, and therefore they should be scrapped.
Britain never wanted multi-culturalism, and now its time for the whole process to be scrapped, revered and a New Britain created out of the multi-cultural chaos.
The Judge That Roared
Most judges are arse licking, career chasing, pension pot accumulating, politically correct middle class tossers who were picked as judges because of their family connections, old school tie or because they ticked one of the right politically correct boxes – such as Peter Herbert the judge who is the head of the Black Lawyers Association.
It appears that a judge who tells the truth is to be regarded as a threat.
It appears that a judiciary that has the temerity to regards itself as independent of the government must be threatened and an example sent out to the rest of them.
Go to your local court.
Go the listing section and see the cases listed for that day.
Note the names of the people before the court.
In most cases they are foreigners unless you are blessed to live in a white area.
Most judges know the extent of crime involving foreigners but they are paid well to keep their mouthes shut.
This judge didnt.
Expect him to be sacked or disciplined to send a signal out to the rest.
This is also why any soldiers who dare speak out about lack of kit, crap equipment etc are also threatened.
FACING PROBE, JUDGE WHO CRITICISED MIGRANT CHEATS
Judge Trigger could be sacked from the bench
Tuesday August 4,2009
By Chris Riches
http://www.express. co.uk/posts/ view/118330/ Facing-probe- judge-who- criticised- migrant-cheats
A JUDGE who spoke out to highlight Britain’s “completely lax”
immigration system faces an investigation that could lead to his
removal from the bench.
Supporters of Judge Ian Trigger were left outraged yesterday on
hearing of the probe following concerns he made while sentencing a
Jamaican drug dealer who should have been deported years ago.
He noted that Lucien McClearley, 31, had remained in the UK to sell
drugs and said “hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were
flooding here, placing a huge burden on the taxpayer.
His comments were cheered by politicians, pressure groups and
think-tanks for highlighting the UK’s border problems but infuriated
Gordon Brown’s Government.
Now the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has referred the outburst to
the Office of Judicial Complaints to rule on whether it was too
political.
But last night there was outcry that the probe might have far-reaching
effects on other judges who wish to raise genuine concerns.
Sir Andrew Green, founder of MigrationWatch, said: “There is a great
deal of concern, privately expressed, in the judiciary about the
number of cases involving failed asylum seekers. There ought to be
some way in which this concern can be expressed without infringing
judicial guidelines.”
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is disgraceful
that political correctness is now intervening in the judicial
process.”
Judge Trigger made his scathing comments last Tuesday after his court
heard McClearley had entered the UK in 2001 on a visitor’s visa.
He was arrested in 2002 after overstaying his welcome but appealed for
asylum and was released while this was pending, allowing him to
“disappear”.
His application was finally rejected in March 2004 but he was arrested
only last February when police noticed his car reeked of cannabis.
Liverpool Crown Court heard how police found £3,700 of cannabis, a
fake driving licence and passport and a gram of cocaine.
Judge Trigger jailed him for two years for drugs offences, stressing
that he hoped he would be deported after serving his sentence, saying:
“Your case illustrates all too clearly the completely lax immigration
policy that exists in this country.
“People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of
thousands of people like you, come to these shores from foreign
countries to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that
exist here.”
The final decision on whether the judge stepped out of line will be
made by Lord Judge and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. If the
complaint is upheld, sanctions include reprimand or even dismissal.
Centurean2\'s Weblog 
Most of the laws passed today aren’t Constitutional. It’s just taken for granted that we will continue to support unlawful laws. It’s pretty much been made up as we go along since the turn of the century. Where is the legal requirement for Social Security or Medicare? What would happen if a lawsuit went to the SCOTUS over taking wages out of my check for these unlawful reasons? Why does America allow the government to own about a third of the land mass? What chapter and verse says they can do that? Why are they in the tree business?
I could find another 20 programs that cost billions in the next 5 minutes that have nothing mentioned in the Federal contract that we are sworn to follow to the letter.
As we go further down the road to Fascism, who will stop it, slow it down, or even complain? At some point, the straw will hit the camel’s back that brings bloodshed and revolution. We just don’t know what that straw will be or when it will be dropped. Actually, I wonder if allowing us to keep our guns keeps us believing that there is still a chance to turn this thing around. If they ever come after the guns, I think some would fight back and start a chain reaction of retribution to get the ball rolling. As it is, we just accept EVERYTHING thinking we can “fix” it if needed.
I’m with you though and wonder why there aren’t multiple lawsuits from multiple citizens or groups, to even complain about what is happening. The ACLJ just filed a FOIA suit for the pictures taken of Air Force I to be released. I’m all for it, but what about the shareholders of several companies that have been allowed to fail, while others are propped up with taxpayer money. There are possibly thousands of lawsuits that could be filed just in the first 100 days of this obamination. How are Union members made whole with Calpers and other government retirement funds, but my money is 50% gone with no help in site. It appears some pigs are more equal than others. I would recommend a review of “1984” and “Animal Farm” if you haven’t seen them for a few years. It will clear things right up.
AMERICA’S OWN 50X50 FABIAN!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2245154/posts
NO IDEA WHAT FABIANISM IS….
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Redistribute this: Fabian NYC report *1
I’ve just got back from stewarding at the Fabian Society Conference, ‘Fairness doesn’t happen by chance’, tickets fairly priced at £30, which is why I was stewarding. As soon as I saw the title of Secretary James Purnell’s keynote debate – ‘SOLIDARITY LOST? Reviving the will to re-distribute’ – I got an intense and heady craving for a sausage roll. A cigarette. A hard slap in the face. Anything, actually, to reassure me that the life I’m living has some connection to reality. The Welfare Reform Bill may be a hundred and nine pages’ worth of suspicious gibberish and the debate that followed was vaguer and more dubious still, but you always know where you are with a sausage roll.
After some initial platitudes – ‘What is solidarity? Well, I’d say it’s kindness transformed into political reality…’ – the Work and Pensions Secretary got down to the meat and bone of what he has in mind for the nation’s poor. Apparently, ‘passive redistribution’ – the worn, outdated notion of actually transferring money from one group of people to another – simply isn’t ‘modern’ any more. ‘We need to move from the concept of passive redistribution to one of active redistribution-increasing aspiration, education and opportunities’. Not thirty seconds before, Purnell himself had noted that aspiration, education and opportunities are accurately predicted by parental and personal income – but apparently financial redistribution is still just a bit too last century, not to mention expensive.
Onto welfare reform. Purnell’s new Welfare Reform Bill contains nothing whatsoever about actually spreading wealth around (I’ve read it. Twice) and a great deal of sops to an imagined Daily Mail readership – and this is cheerily deliberate. ‘I think politicians need to respond to public opinion,’ Purnell said. And yes, that’s commendable, and that would be fine if there were real research into public opinion behind this Bill, but trouble is that the Mail does not, in fact, reflect public opinion so much as create it – which begs the question of why it’s this particular piece of ‘public opinion’ to which the Brown administration has decided to buck a ten-year trend and pay some attention, a question which was left dissolutely dangling.
The rest of the debate meandered over issues of what the left really mean, what they really mean by the concept of fairness, and was ultimately hijacked by a worthy but somewhat off-topic immigration conversation between Trevor Philips of the ECHRC and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, much to Purnell’s beaming relief. Brown was right, but the extent and detail of her rightness conveniently allowed the entire discussion to abandon all hope of actually addressing actual redistribution actually at all, which nobody had seemed very keen to do in the first place anyway.
So I put up my little ink-blotted hand and flapped ineffectually at the air for twenty minutes, until I realised that no, the chair was not going to take my question, because he’d met me. And after realising this, I waited for a pause in the proceedings, and stood up and said it.
”So, Mr Purnell, is there actually going to be any increase in financial redistribution, or not?”
Purnell flustered for a split second, and then he asked the chair, ”do I have to answer that question?” The chair (not his fault) shook his head. ”I’m not going to answer that question,” declared the Secretary.
So when the legitimate questions had finished, I stood in front of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and said,
”Mr Purnell. In this Welfare Reform Bill, a copy of which I have here *brandish*, you have this week suggested that you’re going to impel long-term benefits claimants to work for large companies, which you’re going to sub-contract at public expense, and you’re going to pay those workers under half the minimum wage, and pay the difference to the companies, companies that include the US mega-firm Wal-Mart. Is that correct? And is it just?”
”Well, Ms Penny, *grin wearing thin*, I think the question we need to ask is, ‘does it work?, isn’t it?”
No, James. No, that’s not the question at all.
A lot of things work, and a lot more things work for a little while. Fascist regimes, for example. Or cleaning your teeth with bleach. Or crash-dieting. The question is, is it fair? Is it right? And is it going to create a stabler and more functional society, as opposed to a dazzlingly unequal corporate archipelago? Unless the answer to all of these questions is ‘yes’, does it work doesn’t come into it – not before you know precisely what it is you’re trying to acheive.
”A lot of people would be happy to stack shelves for Wal-Mart, if they were given the opportunity to do it for a living wage. What do you say to that?”
”Well – yes, but we couldn’t do that for everyone who was unemployed for even a day, could we?”
Purnell glared at me, and put on his long, black, expensive-looking coat in a looming-looking way. I, however, am under five feet tall. I’m used to looming. I was not impressed. I remain unimpressed. And as the Bill proceeds through the House in the teeth of a recession, we can only hope that a few stalwart Westminster souls still believe in redistribution – because the Labour’s figureheads certainly don’t.
If you’re feeling a little chilly inside right now, you might want to take a look at this reassuring picture of a very tasty and wholly predictable sausage roll, and possibly go and eat one. I know I shall. There, don’t say I never have any practical solutions.
http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2009/01/redistribute-this-fabian-nyc-report-1.html
SHE SHOULD BE ASKING HOW COME BANKERS ARE FABIANS……….THE PENNY JUST MIGHT DROP!
TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
Could this be happening in America? If so, how?
Our “elected representatives” have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America.
In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled “The Communist Manifesto”. Marxism’s basic theme is that the proletariat (the “exploited” working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the “bourgeoisie” (the middle class) and overthrow the system of “capitalism.” After a brief period of rule by “the dictatorship of the proletariat” the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties!
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning – Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled “zoning” to be “constitutional” in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal “estate tax” laws taxing the “privilege” of transfering property after death and gift before death.)
Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical – “rebels” – of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt “money” in circulation.)
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 — farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set “minimum wage” scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating “conglomerates.”)
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800’s. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930’s. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia’s Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education’s specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, “head-start” programs, textbooks, library books.
(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
Football Fans Come Out Against Islamisation: Birmingham – 4 July 2009
By Aeneas • on July 9, 2009
It seems that football supporters are now organising against Islamisation. There have been several demonstrations against Islamisation and their movement seems to grow with each event. Of course this movement appears to have started following a great many Islamic demonstrations against Britain and the British. We witnessed the threats that were issued to non Muslims at the protest outside the Danish embassy in London response to the Motoons that lampooned the so-called prophet of Islam; we saw the shameful mob that came out to abuse British soldiers in Luton; we witnessed the way an Islamic mob chased the police through the streets of London. We also saw that the authorities appeared to ‘let off’ the people engaged in such disorderly and threatening activities.
It now appears that, like the Islamic groups, they are a movement that can mobilise large numbers at short notice. The Government, due to its appeasement of Islamism and anti-Western policy making, has now created a situation where there is the danger of both groups assembling in vast numbers at the same time. People have been warning the politicians that this might happen for years. I hope they are proud of themselves on ignoring sensible advice and in so doing creating this unstable situation. The Government’s encouragement of Sharia and its appeasement of Islamism via its misguided adherence to the divisive secular religion of multiculturalism has effectively created a situation where there are potentially warring factions within the United Kingdom. As the Government continues in its deafness to reason I would guess that this situation can only get worse.
VIDEOS..
Pingback: AMERICAN PIPE LINE WARS « Colonel6's Blog