Council tax, rebellion, and a day in court

Council tax, rebellion, and a day in courtPosted on October 10, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

Friday 8th October 2010 – A Friday October morning at the Magistrates` Court in the small Welsh town of Brecon seems an unlikely setting for a case that promises to have a fundamental effect on the entire British legal and tax-collecting system. Amongst the usual run-of-the-mill cases that turn up in a small rural community was one involving Powys Council`s application over the non-payment of Council Tax, issued against John Hurst and his wife Tina.

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, John Hurst is no free-loader. He is a highly responsible and patriotic citizen, a former police officer with an impressive record. His decision not to pay is based on thorough research indicating that councils have no legal right whatsoever to levy such a tax on its citizens. Believing this to be true, John would have therefore committed an offence by actually paying the tax, as the majority of us already have. Given that ignorance of the law is no defence, it places the overwhelming majority of hitherto respectable British citizens in an invidious situation and the courts in an even worse one.

John, a committed supporter of Lawful Rebellion, arrived at the court with his wife, along with her Mackenzie Friend. The court official took down the details but then returned some time later stating that Tina Hurst’s case was no longer listed. This was an extremely odd development, given that Tina is registered disabled with visual impairment and would have hence qualified for a Council Tax rebate, which had not been awarded and for legal aid should she decide to take the case further. It would appear that suspicions of skulduggery would not be entirely unfounded. The official was challenged over this and shortly afterwards brought out a more senior figure, a pleasant young man, who invited the little party into a private office. There he declared that on checking his information, Tina Hurst was on the list after all!

Much later, the group was invited into Court. John Hurst, representing himself, immediately questioned as to why there were only two magistrates on the bench instead of the required three. The Council`s solicitor stated that he had to agree but that this was not contentious. John immediately retorted that it was and insisted on exercising his legal right to have three magistrates present. The court officials had to concede and the group was asked to leave the Court whilst a third magistrate be found.

Amongst John Hurst’s contentions, was the fact that this court had no jurisdiction to make a firm decision on his case. Therefore, it was welcome when the council solicitor appeared, telling John that the court had decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for trial on Friday 5th November at ten a.m.

The group re-entered the Court shortly afterwards for the formal decision to be announced, but John consequently and successfully challenged the by now hapless and bewildered clerk of the court over a number of legal and procedural issues.

It was not all over, as John stated that he had not yet received disclosure of the Council`s documents. The Council`s solicitor conceded that they had only been posted on 29th September, two days earlier. The clerk then stated that in order to enable Counsel to examine the Hurst’s skeleton argument, the time of the coming hearing would be delayed by thirty minutes. John immediately stated that he failed to understand how this would allow Counsel to assimilate the information as it consisted of thirty pages. The clerk again seemed baffled by this, as she was unaware of this attachment. The Council`s solicitor was immediately questioned and became somewhat incoherent. He asked if John had actually sent the documents with the attachment, to the Council. John stated that he had and furthermore had a printed e-mail acknowledgement from the Council to prove it.

Hence, it was established that the Council`s solicitor must have knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose vital evidence to the Court, a criminal offence.

The Court was hastily concluded and the officials and the solicitor were assured that a formal complaints would be issued, including one to the police requesting the arrest and charge of Powys Council`s solicitor for withholding evidence from the Court, which, moreover, would have not have been discovered but for the unfortunate clerk`s statement.

It must be said that John Hurst`s performance in Court was magnificent, assured, authoritative and knowledgeable at all times, invariably leaving the court, including the magistrates, trailing along hopelessly out of their collective depth. He and his wife deserve every possible support for their courageous stand, which is an important stepping stone on the way to exposing the inefficiency, unlawful conduct and even possible corruption on the part of those responsible for administering our legal system and the behaviour of other state-funded officials, particularly in this instance, those employed by Powys Council.

This court report was originally written by journalist Robert Green.

read comments at pjc journal link below

Council Tax rebellion – John Hurst StatementPosted on October 11, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

Following the court report published yesterday, John Hurst has issued the following Statement for publication:

So much for the events at Court. The significance of this case to us all is the reason why a local authority, or any other revenue gathering body, no longer has lawful authority to tax us. It is because The Crown, and all officials who act in the name of the Crown, have breached the contract with the people of these islands to rule us according to our laws and customs.

That contract was acknowledged in the peace treaties know as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. The present Queen publicly swore to uphold those laws and customs at her Coronation in 1953. In 2009 she gave Royal Assent to the unlawful pretended statute which gave effect to the Lisbon treaty and allowed foreign potentates of the European Union to issue directives and regulations which her officials then impose as if they had the authority of Parliament.

From that moment the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a tyranny, and we were subjected to the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.
This is not the first time this has happened in history and our ancestors successfully resisted using our common law right to the protection of duress of circumstances confirmed in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta.

The “Skeleton Argument” that is before the Court explains what is at stake:

i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.

ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.

iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.

iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.

i.  The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.

ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.

iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.

iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.

v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.

vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.

vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.

viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).

ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.

x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.

xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.

1. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.

i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.

ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.

iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part.  Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.

2. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.

i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.

ii.  If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.

Respectfully submitted,

John Hurst.

As reported yesterday, the Brecon court has decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for for a new hearing on Friday 5th November at ten a.m, and I am sure that John would welcome support.

(note: it is not a trial, but a hearing before an administrative court which is hired for the day by the Council, including the magistrates).

Edward Spalton says:

The late Norris McWhirter (of Freedom Association and Guinness Book of Records fame) and Rodney Atkinson laid information before the English and Scottish courts against Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude upon charges of treason whilst they were engaged in negotiating the Maastricht treaty.

As you can imagine, the facts were not in doubt and the charges soundly based in the then existing laws.

The authorities’ answer was silence until Parliament had passed the Act ratifying the Maastricht treaty. They then said that the Act made everything all right.

Several of the treason laws under which these charges were laid have since been repealed by clauses tacked on to Bills here and there and no MP noticed.

Christine Melsom says:

Over the years we have experienced many of our members going through the court system and then to prison.
The National press are no longer interested in reporting these case unless the defendant is a pensioner and is sent to prison.
Several Isitfair members did receive prison sentences for witholding all or part of their council tax, but this stopped when Richard Fitzmaurice was splashed all over the National Newspapers wearing handcuffs.
The message then went out from Government, that never again should a pensioner be imprisoned for non payment of council tax.

Criminals commit crimes from rape to torture- then walk free from court?

Another News Blackout when it comes to council tax–recall the Elizabeth Beckett case? when she took action against this tax.

c) Tax on fuel should be reduced since its effect is arbitrary by any taxable logic.

  • So Mr. Blair altered legal aid so much that even people on my income (less than £9,000 pa) cannot get it and treason needs a very narrow certificate from the lawyers. I therefore ask you to take the steps necessary under 2a) above if it is by any means within your power.

  • I am taking a case on the illegality of some aspects of council tax in the high court: I was granted oral review, but thought it wiser to have counsel rather than act on my own and Leolyn Price CB QC has kindly agreed to represent me.

  • The lowering of trust apparently intentionally has led to loss to shareholders for whom legal protection is needed. The people in Parliament seem to have little knowledge of the law nor the legal protection of the people, only the desire for power and in this case globalisation. William Blackstone said, “Law is not a matter of opinion.” This, our representatives seem not to have learnt.

  • The House of Lords is the Curia Regis to advise the Monarch. The suggestion that a man who has twice been asked to leave the government for malfeasance should be given a position in the Lords tends to further distrust of government at a time when trust is essential if the nation is to come together and rise above the present discomfort and lack of trust in this government and the Curia Regis. It gives an impression of irresponsibility in government which is outside our principles and traditions. But apparently fits in with the teaching of five-year-olds that they are part of a wider community without being based in their own. Mr. Blunkett, Mr. Brown and others have published books paid for by the tax-payer effectively dispersing any concept of our Christian heritage. Mr. Brown, as an example, in his white paper has said he intends to give the Royal Prerogative to Parliament or even to the people in one sweep of the pen without recognising the meaning of the prerogative removing our history and our constitution for which our ancestors fought.

  • I now put before your Lordship the grounds of high treason against those presently governing this nation.

    a) Firstly so that the so-called removal of the prerogative power from the Queen comes directly under the 1351 Treason Act since the Act of Constitutional Reform by taking the prerogative from the monarch, the power being in Sir Edward Coke’s words a part of the monarch and cannot be taken from the monarch even by act of parliament and removal, therefore, comes directly within the phrase “if a man compasses or imagines the death of the sovereign . . .” it is treason: “if a man levies war against the sovereign …” and by taking over the position of the Lord Chancellor and turning it into something else this comes into “slaying the Lord Chancellor …”. And as head of constitutional affairs and the justices by false laws that treason is further laid and supported in later treason Acts and backed by the 1351 Treason act in the words, “… and because that many other cases of the like treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot think or declare at this present time; it is accorded, that if any other case of supposed treason which is not above specified…” is to go before the justices and the king to be judged treason or felony

    b) Under this heading I name the imposition of automatic into “the Royal Assent”. for this has been claimed “as to the status of convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both houses of parliament the Prime Minister is in doubt …” (quoted from 1972 letter from 10 Downing street) This conflicts with the statement in Rogers Walters, “How Parliament Works”, Pearson and Longman fourth edition which is in use in the speaker’s office and in most county libraries where the Royal Assent is clearly defined: “A Bill presently before both houses needs the Royal Assent as the third element of Parliament before it can become law.” Rogers and Walters add the concept of the assent being ‘automatic’ and it is relevant to the treason that the phrase was inserted in 1911 for King George V to be persuaded to pass the Parliament Act and other legislation against our constitution. under the framework of the Treason and Felony Act of 1848, ‘any person who compasses or imagines devises or intends to depose … in order to force constrain or compel her or they to change their measures or courses … shall be guilty of felony”, conviction being transportation for not less than seven years with hard labour.

    In the book on the constitution by Nigel Knight, tutor in Law at Cambridge University, a further aberration and compelling of the mind of the monarch on the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was given against the wishes of George V.

    That this chicanery has continued to be used does not make it less heinous and it is relevant that the claim of 1972 from Downing Street connived with the entry into the EC and hence the EU.

  • I write now, in view of the danger, after the attempt of Michael Foot to nationalise banks, now being effected under the same intention, but with the camouflage of a world economic crisis, to ask your Lordship to declare the automatic assent void and illegal under the constitutional statute including that of 1795 made perpetual in 1807, 1817 and 1848 and only repealed under the automatic assent, Rogers and Walters claim the assent by convention had become automatic since Queen Anne was the last monarch to send a Bill back. In fact, William III, George III, William IV, Queen Victoria and, as Asquith well knew, Edward VII (because the Bill had been handed to him), had all returned Bills.

  • Most of the ordinary people of England such as myself and my friends, know the principles of our constitutional laws for which the freemen and barons of England fought and forced on John with the help of the bishops and arch-bishops at Runnymede.

    The cruelty, despite constitutional constraint, which successive governments have forced on us involves a mercilessness that has to be held as treason against the sovereign people and augurs badly for such people having the power over our money. I fought for ‘the man on the shop floor’ when I gave Lord Hailsham the concept of the conscience clause against the Foot Bill (Trades Unions and Labour Relations Amendment Bill). Lord Hailsham was unable to get that clause through and it had to wait until Mrs. Thatcher and yet this is central to our spiritual existence as a Christian nation. These politicians could see no relevance in the freedom of the spirit of man.

  • We, the ordinary people of Britain, the freemen, ask for you to take the steps needed to free our constitutional laws and customs giving us protection against the hideous and treasonous servitude under which we are presently held and free our sovereign from the Fabian thrall or, failing that, under chapter 61 of Magna Carta, replace her with someone able to honour their Coronation Oath. The present situation is worse than that under King John.


    (signed) Elizabeth Beckett

    Labels: ,

    Lady of 83, student of the British Constitution – stands up against our Treasonous Government

    Will We the People support her? Or, as it has become
    our custom, will we turn our heads and look the other way?

    By David Heatherington

    The Westminster News

    As one flagrant breach of the Constitution is piled onto another, Mrs. Elizabeth Beckett is one of those who is prepared to stand up and fight.

    When she discovered that her council tax bill was being used as a vehicle to extract money from her for a European Union inspired regional assembly, she went on the offensive.
    She launched four legal cases against the government citing erosion of the Constitution, Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust and for Treason and Legal Fraud. Each time her paperwork was sent back marked “No such case known in Law”.


    Now she is refusing to pay the local tax on her Old Vicarage house in Alston, Cumbria, and has been the subject of considerable harassment by bailiffs.

    Mrs. Beckett, whose father was Ronald Brymer Beckett, a High Court Judge, has researched the British Constitution and states that there are three general principles governing the system of raising money for public purposes by compelling the payment by individuals of sums of money called taxes.

    1) Subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue that they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. In the observation or neglect of this maximum consists what is called equality or inequality taxation.

    2) The tax that each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time, manner and quality of the payment ought to be certain and not arbitrary, clear to the contributor and to every other person.

    3) Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the State.

    Mrs Elizabeth Beckett handing over a letter to a Police Sergent in Penrith, Cumbria, asking the Chief Constable to protect her rights under the Constitution.
    Mrs, Beckett has refused to pay her council tax to Eden District Council since discovering that some of the council tax money is then illegally siphoned-off for use by the European Union to create a new regional authority under its control.
    Mrs Beckett believes her rights under the British Constitution are being flouted because the local authority is attempting to coerce her into payment of the rates before she has had the opportunity to appeal the matter to a higher court.
    She says she has received numerous letters from council officers and visits from bailiffs to her old vicarage home in Alston, Cumbria, where she has been threatened with forcible confiscation of her property and with bankruptcy

    Mrs. Beckett, who was a District Officer’s wife in India, believes that adding onto local taxes the cost of illegal immigrants or local assemblies that are a link to the European Union, itself a body not allowed under our Constitution, is illegal. Money raised for local councils should be described as a service charge, not a Tax.

    Mrs. Beckett says the adding to our Service Charges of other items stems from the 1911 Parliament Act when the Marxists, Socialists, Fabians and Sinn Fein and the Liberal Government under Asquith took the power of Taxation from the King and the scrutiny of the Lords, so that the party that gets into power can tax in any way they like without any supervision or control.

    “That Act is to this day illegal, but the words used to destroy the Lords were the same words used to get rid of the Queen’s authority,” she said.

    “Our Constitution is clear:
    We the people hold the power (we are a democracy but we are also a Constitutional Monarchy) but for the power of Government and giving assent to Bills, we give the power known as the Royal Prerogative, to the Queen to govern. She governs in our name and according to the laws that we brought in to prevent her or the people in Parliament, from taking over power.
    Unfortunately this has been done both in the 1911 Parliament Act and in the Reform of the Constitution Act of 2005 when Blair and Lord Falconer took over the power we had given to the Queen for her lifetime. They then gave to Parliament the right to decide on whether or not to go to war instead of putting the power under our laws that say we cannot go to war unless someone is attacking us.”

    Last week Mrs. Becket was told by a senior civil servant that Acts of Parliament now go straight into Law. They no longer require Royal Assent because the Queen’s agreement is automatic, due to Queen Anne being the last Monarch to refuse to accept a Bill passed by both Houses.“This is not in fact true as both George III, Queen Victoria and Edward VII all sent Bills back. This is a very serious matter as it means that all Bills that have not had assent are in fact invalid. “What this government has done is take from the people their inherent power under the Constitutional Law. This is the birthright of the British people and their sovereignty under the Act of Settlement.”The fact is that the British people are now fighting a ‘war from within.’


    The strategy of our enemies is:

    1. To abolish the Monarchy and all ordered government. 


    2. To abolish private property.  


    3. To abolish patriotism and nationalism. 


    4. To abolish the family unit.  


    5. To abolish organised religion.





    20 responses to “Council tax, rebellion, and a day in court


      “Our Constitution is clear:
      We the people hold the power (we are a democracy but we are also a Constitutional Monarchy) but for the power of Government and giving assent to Bills, we give the power known as the Royal Prerogative, to the Queen to govern. She governs in our name and according to the laws that we brought in to prevent her or the people in Parliament, from taking over power.
      Unfortunately this has been done both in the 1911 Parliament Act and in the Reform of the Constitution Act of 2005 when Blair and Lord Falconer took over the power we had given to the Queen for her lifetime. They then gave to Parliament the right to decide on whether or not to go to war instead of putting the power under our laws that say we cannot go to war unless someone is attacking us.”

      Creeping Communism/Fabian Socialism & Globalism

      All of the members of Whitlam’s cabinet were Fabian Socialists as was Bob Hawke and probably all of his cabinet also. Fabian Socialsism is simply creeping Communism with the aim of taking control by stealth. Probably many of the Globalists are members of this subversive organisation.

      The following 2006 essay is worth saving on paper and reading every other day, to remind us of the twirps who are herding us to the slaughter:

      The religion of Socialism is based primarily on the teachings of the pagan Greek philosopher and writer, Plato and especially his book “The Republic” in which 400 years before the time of Christ, he dreamed of a “World Republic”, headed, not by a President but by a Royal “World Philosopher King” or Prince (like himself, of course!)
      Both Karl Marx and Hitler were great students of Plato. It is only inevitable that the planned reformed United Nations and the European Union will one day be headed by this “Philosopher Prince”.

      Socialism officially first began in 1880 in London, when N.M.Hyndman founded the Rose Street Club which was dedicated to the destruction of Christianity in England.
      In 1884, the group changed its name and came to be called, the Social Democratic Federation. Its early Members deceptively called themselves “Christian Socialists”. Later, the group’s Membership included the Jew, Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx and her husband, Professor Aveling. Behind the scenes, the group was largely controlled by Engels, Karl Marx’s partner and because Hyndman would not obey the orders of Engels, Eleanor Marx and her husband, split off with William Morris (the Poet) and others and started an opposition group which they called “Socialist League.”
      On January 4, 1884, Members and past Members of the Social Democratic Federation, the Socialist League and others, founded the FABIAN SOCIETY..
      The first Meeting of the Fabian Society was held at the home of Mr E R Pease, a Member of the London Stock Exchange. Two of the leading Members were, George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb (husband of Beatrix Potter, the writer). Other early Members were Eleanor Marx; theosophist and occultist, Annie Besant; and the author, H G Wells.
      The name of the Society was suggested by the spiritualist, Frank Podmore, who named it after the brilliant, elderly, third century Roman General – Censor and Consul – Quintus Fabius (Maximus Verrucosus – 303 to 203 BC), who was made a Dictator in 221 – 217 BC.
      – 1 –
      With his small band of fighting guerrillas and superior cunning, successfully defended Rome by defeating Hannibal’s much bigger and mighty Carthaginian Army through “gradualism” and “terrorism” during the time of the second Punic War.
      Initially, he kept to the hills and cunningly hampered the enemy’s progress by cutting off their food and supply lines with “delaying tactics” until Rome could assemble enough men to defend the city successfully. During the war, his slow, “gradual” delaying tactics were greatly disapproved of by his soldiers and the civilians and earned him the name of “Cunctator” the “Delayer” but later, after the triumph, his skill and wisdom was highly appreciated. He died in his 100th year in 203 BC.
      Fabian Socialism is a mixture of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism, all bundled together. However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is, that Communists take your house by directly sending in the ‘secret police’ to knock down your front door and Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly by ‘gradually’ taking your individual rights away, by ‘gradually’ increasing property taxes and rates and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their Federal Tax Inspectors to take your house away but the end result is the same.
      British PM Tony Blair and President George Bush Jr’s globalist ‘war on terror’ is a classic Fabian Socialist strategy.
      The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the statement: The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism and the abolition of private property etc. (Of course, this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top, who end up owning the lot.)
      Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defence of Bolshevism.
      It was entitled, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation. In April 1952, the Webbs were exposed before a U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary when Soviet Colonel I M Bogolepov, as former Red Army Officer stated: That the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office.
      Appropriately, the defiant Coat of Arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by the Author/Playwright and co-founder) George Bernard Shaw, today, now archived, is a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.”
      – 2 –
      Until recently, it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed) in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey, England.
      Today, the Fabian Society is, among other things, the intellectual wing of the British Labour Party. Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.
      Since the 1997 British General Election, there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Plunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short. Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate entire British Governments. They are resident in all Parties and sit on all important select Committees, Commissions and organisations allied to the Government.

      The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union, German born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since 1997 and Member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was one of two House of Commons’ Representatives on the European Convention and a Member of the drafting body that created the Draft Constitution for Europe. In her book, “The Making of Europe’s Constitution, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society – page 20-21, Gisela writes:
      “In the early months, the Presidium Members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building, about fifteen minutes walk from the European Parliament. Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir John Kerr, his Deputy and the Press Officer. Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office, conducted the proceedings inside the presidium and in the plenary sessions of the Convention with deft, diplomatic skill as might be expected from someone who John Major called “Machiavelli” in his autobiography, the best description of his talents I heard was: “When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?”
      On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess, a small place used by the Belgian Foreign Minister. It was one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the Draft Constitution was given to Members of the Presidium in sealed, brown envelopes, the weekend before the public presentation. We were not allowed to take the Documents away with us.
      – 3 –
      Just precisely who drafted the skeleton and when, is still unclear to me but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Sir John Kerr during the summer. There was little time for discussion and even less scope for changes to be made.
      Today, the Labour Parties in both New Zealand and Australia, are closely affiliated to the Fabian Society in London.
      When the Australian Labour Party Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, a Rhodes Scholar, was guest of honour at the Fabian Society’s Centenary Commemoration Dinner on May 18, 1984, he said:
      “So I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism Earlier, I dealt at some length, with the principle of the inevitability of ‘gradualness’. There is another important idea, a method more than a principle which becomes closely associated with Fabianism. Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation’.
      Webb put it this way. Most reformers think that all they have to do in a Political Democracy, is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake. What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast but also the mental climate in which Parliament and Governments both live and work. That, I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of the Nation in our first term of office.”
      In June 2001, at the Federal Government joint standing committee on Treaties, inquiry into whether Australia should support a Statute of the United Nations Criminal Court which would affect the “Sovereignty” of all Australians, when critiqued by an Australian Patriotic Group, Labour Party Senator, Chris Schacht, sarcastically exclaimed, that he had been a Member of the Fabian Society for 20 years and further said: “You probably were not aware that us Fabians have taken over the CIA, KGB, MI-5, ASIO, IMF, THE WORLD BANK and many other organisations.”
      That is why Tony Blair, as part of the 2006 Commonwealth Games Closing Celebrations in Melbourne on March 26, was also invited by Labor officials and business leaders to speak to the Australian Parliament in Canberra on March 27 about his Fabian “war against terror” and “intelligence matters” where he said:
      “The war against terror was as much a battle about values as it was about arms”
      and why, after the Australian Government meeting, he flew directly to New Zealand on March 28, to speak about the same subject at a meeting in the Auckland Town Hall,

      – 4 –
      hosted by the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark and the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, after which he participated (by video-link), in the International Climate Change Conference in Wellington on March 29 and later discussed with Prime Minister Helen Clark, his (Fabian Society) initiatives to set up a unit in the NZ Public Service to enable their respective Labour Governments to co-operate more closely on policy development (NZ Herald, March 28, 2006 page A3) and on security intelligence matters “as Communist China is brought into the fold.
      During the last century, members of the British Fabian Society, dynastic banking families in the City of London, financed the Communist takeover of Russia. Trotsky, in his biography, refers to some of the loans from these British financiers from as early as 1907. By 1917, the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution, were co-ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner. The Communist system in Russia was a “British experiment” designed ultimately to become the Fabian Socialist Model for the British takeover of the world through the UN and the EU.

      Editor’s Note: In some of my previous letters, I viewed this terrorist war as a war between the Elites and the Peasants and not so much about oil. However, more interesting facts will come to light .

      Researched and written by: Genevieve A BRIGGS



      In his book The New Despotism, Lord Hewart, written in 1929, revealed the serious nature of the Fabians involvement in the British government: “A mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intending to produce, and in practice producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places Government departments beyond the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts.”



    2. The Dangers of Fabian Socialism Oct 6 (1-3)

      5878467 | 07 October 2010

      Fox News Network – Oct 6, 2010

      Tonight is an explosive hour that you do NOT want to miss- share this with your friends! Tonight you will hear
      some horrifying comments and beliefs expressed by real people- progessives.

      Some of these people are running our country and teaching your children. These beliefs are so incomprehensible to the average American and so far
      below the lowest standards of humanity, it’s actually hard to believe..but, please- do your own research.

      Warning: Some of the clips and graphics that you will see tonight are extremely graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

      I can’t believe i am actually posting Glenn Beck videos – well this one is one of the better shows & is worth watching. Better than the kool aid put out by CNN & CNBC

      ClassicalLiberal said…

      The Road Ahead; America’s Creeping Revolution is John T. Flynn’s treatise on the infiltration of Socialism into the politics of the United States. First published in 1949, he stated:

      “. . . the line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.”

      For anyone interested in further reading:

      The Road Ahead” (1949)-By John Flynn-Full book here

      “As we go marching”Good fascism, Bad fascism, and soil fascism “(944)- By John Flynn- Full book here


      John Ray does great work on the roots of American Fascism (the progressive movement).

      Free and full Audio books on philosophy, history, and economics.

      Free Text books on economics, philosophy, and history here.

      Eugenics and the progressive era

      A while back I put together a thread investigating Cultural Marxism: The Unspoken New World Order – Cultural Marxism. Before I open the discussion surrounding The Fabian Society, some of you might find it useful to familiarise yourself with it.

      Cultural Marxism: A Brief Synopsis

      Cultural Marxism is a way for Marxist idealists to secretly bring about a post-modern age – a New World Order. The basic premise is that the western world will not accept blatant Communism, so it must be subverted over a long period of time in order to be primed for the acceptance of a more covert form of Communism. As suggested by The Frankfurt School, this subversion of western tradition should include the breakdown of family, law and order; mass immigration; feminism and political correctness.

      The Fabian Society

      From their own website:

      The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society’s programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.

      The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.

      All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.

      The Fabian Society

      The Fabian Society is a think-tank with a self-proclaimed ‘noble’ aim then. So why would the original coat-of-arms of a ‘noble’, extremely influential society, affiliated with the Labour Party, consist of a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

      There could not be a more appropriate image to represent Cultural Marxism than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Not to mention the fact that it was originally founded in the year of Karl Marx’s death to promote his ideas. It is a Marxist society – The British government are, through this, strongly affiliated with the Marxist ideal of a new world.

      Furthermore, when you look at the key points being pushed by The Fabian Society, represented conveniently by their current topics of debate:

      …and compare them with Frankfurt School and known New World Order propaganda, it becomes chillingly clear that the Fabian Society is a devious, powerful, subversive organisation dedicated to creating a new, post-modern society against our wishes.

      As one blog puts it:

      Founded the year of Marx’s death to promote his ideas through gradualism, the Fabian Society sought to “honeycomb” society, as Fabian Margaret Cole put it, with disguised socialist measures. By glossing over its goals, the Fabian Society hoped to avoid galvanizing the enemies of socialism.

      Secret Teachings

      There you have it. Further proof of the unspoken new world order. Expose at every turn.

      reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 09:24 AM by Someone336
      The Fabians are an group of capitalist elites in left-wing clothing. It’s regarded as the core think-tank for the British “New Labour” movement, whose split from the traditional Labour party occured when Tony Blair overturned Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution. Clause IV reads as follows:

      To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

      Removing this effectively destroys New Labour’s support for even the most basic socialist beliefs, which concern the ownership of the means of production by the working class. The New Labour’s intention in removing Clause IV is to forge a “third way”, which is a synthesis of right and left wing political and economic structures. This also runs contrary to socialism. I would be tempted to concur with Trotsky that the Fabians are simply a ploy, a red herring, to save capitalism from the working class. The original organization that the Fabians sprouted off from, the Fellowship of New Life, is a much more legitimate organization, with their foundation in the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, and their belief in pacifism, vegetarianism and simple living. Unless those things are part of the New World Order, right?

      You would be interested to note that several early Fabians, such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, were close friends with H.G. Wells, who advocated strongly the concept that would blossom into the E.U. Wells is well known for having said the following:

      “Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it.”

      The quote comes from a pamphlet Wells wrote called The New World Order, where he calls for a global society based on worldwide social democracy. It’s an interesting read, and not as evil as one might conclude based on it’s unfortunate title (but how could Wells have foreseen throngs of conspiracy theorists salivating over such words?).

      Edit: I didn’t realize this, but H.G. Wells was actually a member of the Fabian Society for a short time, however, he broke with them because of his desires for a far more radical society. His criticism of the Fabian Society, in addition to their lackluster method of promoting the spirit of revolution, included a sub-par understanding of economic theory and focus on the reformation of the educational system of the time.

      [edit on 8-1-2010 by Someone336]

      reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 11:10 AM by Cythraul
      reply to post by Someone336


      Thank you for that wonderful, indepth reply. Starred!

      Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution appears, though, to be a worthy indicator of the gulf between genuine Marxist ideal and the New World Order. This distinction was debated in quite some depth in my thread about Cultural Marxism (linked above). The overturning of this Clause IV seems, to me, to be what separates Marxism from the NWO and Old Labour from New Labour. True Marxists support the theory that an old-style bourgeoisie should be eradicated whereas the NWO wish to create an ultra-elite bourgeoisie with the rest of us living essentially as we would under a Marxist system. This appears to be what Tony Blair was trying to move toward when he overturned Clause IV.

      The Fabians and the British Empire

      In 1900, during the height of the Boer War, the Fabian Society, a prominent middle-class Socialist society in Britain, issued Fabianism and the Empire, an election pamphlet edited by prominent playwright and Fabian Society member George Bernard Shaw. Ostensibly the society’s first work on the British Empire in its sixteen years of existence (it was founded in 1884), the publication, a mere 55 pages long, is now widely considered to be the definitive statement by Fabians on imperialism. Today, most historians take the position that the Fabians were, in historian Bernard Semmel’s words, “social imperialists” if and when they ever thought about the Empire and were—for whatever reason—as imperialist and jingoist as Joseph Chamberlain or Cecil Rhodes and as racist, if not more so,

      Some argue that they were as strident in their imperialism and as racist as Cecil Rhodes or Joseph Chamberlain


    3. CEO of the corporation MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT also trading as HOUSE OF COMMONS.


      Elections- electing new members of the board!!


    4. Illegal taxes, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
      They violate the 1st Amendment by fencing-in demonstrators at G-20, banning books like “America Deceived II” and trying to take-over the internet.
      They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
      They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by wireless wiretapping.
      They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
      Impeach Obama (and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul).
      [Link of Banned Book]:
      America Deceived II (book)

    5. Pingback: Quicklinx for the Week of 10/18 (see Quicklinx page above for previous) «

    6. “John Hurst is no free-loader….. a former police officer with an impressive record”

      By definition the “former police officer” was a tax eating Statist freeloader.

    7. By The Namaste Team

      This is an update concerning Mrs Elizabeth Beckett’s legitimate Constitutional stance against an illegal tax system and treasonous government. A story that should be on the front page of every newspaper, but has remained unreported! This amazingly selfless lady has studied the British Constitution in great depth. Her initial interest in the law began when she was a District Officer’s wife in India where her father, a High Court Judge for many years, was party to drawing up the 1935 India Act of Independence.

      Since our last issue, Elizabeth was summoned to appear in court at Carlisle on the 24th July, a distance from her home of approximately 55 miles. Without hesitation or complaint, this remarkable 83 year old lady, who in her own words is lame, (she cannot walk very well without aid, due to a painful hip), took a taxi on her own, to the court where a judge listened to her appeal against a threatened bankruptcy order by her local council, for refusing to pay her Council Tax. Her refusal was based on the following objections:
      “It is illegal to pay a tax to destroy my country.”

      Later she discovered just how illegally councils are acting.

      Elizabeth has received very little mainstream media reporting, the little she has had has only been at local level. Nationally, the BBC televised 30 seconds on the Politics Show. Even though she was interviewed by a reporter, the BBC editor refused point blank to broadcast her interview. It was withdrawn. We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?

      We at Namaste have tried to present Elizabeth’s story to various national newspapers: They were not interested. In fact the News Desk of the Daily Mail in Manchester thought our information about Elizabeth’s Constitutional Rights and the Act of Treason committed against the people of the British nation, was far fetched! We put it to the News Desk that we do indeed have a Constitution. This was also dismissed.

      We ask, could this be because of the influence of Common Purpose?

      It is quite clear that we are dealing with mindset which is at best totally ignorant and, at worst, working deliberately to subvert our ancient Constitutional history – The Birth Right of the People of England, (1700). This is still the law of the land today! How could this happen? The plan has been carefully contrived. The journalist Stewart Alsop wrote: “Knowledge is power and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds the power…”

      This would help to explain why Harold Wilson removed the teaching of the Constitution from the British education curriculum, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Today, Britain’s universities DO NOT teach treason laws, the greatest crime against a nation; hence today, we find our nation and our freedom in the most critical situation. How could this happen you may ask? The answer to this can be found in the descriptively accurate words of Cicero Marcus Tullius, born on 3 January, 106 BC and murdered on 7 December, 43 BC:

      “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

      Unquestioning, Unwilling to Research

      This is so precisely true of what is taking place today, not only in Britain, but other countries of the Commonwealth, and the USA – this is the Common Purpose. Unmasking Common Purpose (page 36)

      We and our colleagues both in the UK and USA, are deeply concerned with the direction that both our nations are heading, yet so many seem woefully ignorant. This is not because people are stupid but they lack time and interest to inform themselves, largely because of the education system and mass media control with mind manipulations. We see and hear people acting like sheep, unheeded by the ever emerging totalitarian state, unquestioning, unwilling to research and blindly accepting lies and half-truths from those who can only be best described at misinformed and in the main, deliberate liars.
      Part of this disinformation relates to our Council Tax in the UK. For the benefit of our overseas readers, Council Tax is a tax on domestic property collected by local councils in the UK. The council is supposed to use this revenue to pay for local services such as schools, rubbish (garbage) collection, roads and street lighting, etc.

      Fiscal Prerogative
      Elizabeth felt driven to research the issue of Council Tax accounts, having observed various related, suspicious news articles in the press one of which involved the North West Regional Council of the UK purchasing a house in Brussels, a totally inappropriate action in view of the sufferings of the Cumbrian fishermen and farmers. This alarmed her to the fact that she might well, as a law abiding honest Council Tax payer, be assisting in the potential breakup of her country. We must emphasise that Constitutional Law is not a matter of politics, whether one votes to drive on the left or the right, but a matter of law like the dividing of Britain into ‘Lander’ such as the county of Kent becoming part of France, and Wales becoming part of Ireland etc. That is against our law and Elizabeth said she could not pay for the destruction of the sovereignty of this country. She then asked for full disclosure of how her Council Tax is being spent. This has not been forthcoming because of the liability order against her; the order is an executive order and in Britain alone is governed by the Royal Prerogative. The Enforcement Officer and people in charge of the courts refused to admit that the Liability Order could be challenged in any way. According to the Petition of Right of 1627 all taxation should be honoured by Parliament, under the Royal Assent and Parliament cannot pass acts that are against our Constitution.

      Elizabeth further discovered a covert plan to do with the regional assemblies. These are voluntary bodies that are designed to break up England, e.g. Northumberland up to Carlisle will became part of Germany. This was not mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto.

      Amongst the papers she handed to the judge at her trial, were the details of Common Purpose and their assemblies, which have increased by 500% since the year 2000. Taxation emanates from the Chancellor’s Office and these are illegal under what is known as the ‘fiscal prerogative’ and the ‘Petition of Right’. Because these assemblies are voluntary bodies, they are not available for funding by the taxpayer. Our Constitution states that ‘all laws’ that go through Parliament ‘must have Royal Assent, in order to become law.’ Instead, they are now validated on a false claim that the Royal Assent is automatic. However, the power to grant this is part of the prerogative, which it impassable.
      The automatic assent was invented by the Fabian Prime Minister Asquith who gave the qualification based on the premise that Queen Ann had been the last monarch to send back a bill. The implication being that the monarch could not send back bills, whereas in fact, their power lies in the support of our Constitutional Laws by refusing to give Assent to bills that are unconstitutional.

      The Parliament Act

      In fact Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 and as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.

      The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution – No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.

      At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elizabeth put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit. Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”

      This is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elizabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”

      Elizabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”.

      Common law

      Elizabeth’s Plaint lays the ground for important legal and Constitutional constraints which are being side-stepped and their legal validity is being denied by our present legal system and government. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament” which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury’s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England (These are legal reference books of great prestige).

      Since the Assent is given under the regal ‘Prerogative Power,’ it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. So in a different way, both Counsel’s opinion and Elizabeth’s lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, she says that one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.
      It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. (see article page 31)

      Since our last issue, Elizabeth has spent many weeks preparing for her appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice. As we write today 16th November, her leave for Judicial Review has been granted. Furthermore it has arrived just in time to save her house from being taken over. Elizabeth heard her news whilst in hospital with an embolism she is unbelievably grateful to all those readers who have been kind enough to send donations.

      She says: “It has been so heart warming and encouraging to know people are supporting me”.

      It came as such a surprise to her and beyond her expectations to receive donations from our readers.

      Elizabeth is determined and optimistic as ever. The money we sent to her she says has enabled her to pay for the court application, photocopying, postage, telephoning and travel in order to put together her appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice.

      Elizabeth’s Plaint is clear, Treason has been committed and should be remedied.
      Abbe Talleyrand de Perigord said to Mme Recamier in the early nineteen hundreds :
      “Understand this, if the English Constitution is destroyed so will be the civilisation of the world”

      If the Supremacy of Parliament is to rest on treason, it will help no one.
      As of the time of writing this article, Elizabeth has still not received a date for her appeal in the High Court. We ask readers to please continue to check the Namaste website for an update with details. As MANY people as possible should attend. We ask if people would try their best to attend the hearing, and to invite others. If anybody knows of any contacts who might help in funding for a good legal counsel, we implore you to let us know. Your freedom and that of future generations hangs in the balance. Elizabeth cannot do this without the support of the people – your support. Her stance is for everyone. Will we support her, or has it become our custom to turn our heads and look the other way? If we think that we British have no need to be concerned and our lives are just fine, we have our holidays, we have work, if not we get benefits and above all we are entertained, so why should we bother with all of this? Well, the zombification of Britain is well in place and the future is not as pretty as people think. Do not be deterred, our freedom hangs by a thread! BEWARE, by 2009 it will BE TOO LATE.

      Why are you making this potentially dangerous and difficult stance at your time of life?

      “I do it for my children, grandchildren and for all our ancestors – all those who have died for our freedom. Do you want to see your children in chains? I was in India during the war and knew about the fight against the Japanese and I knew about the earlier war and I quote John Edmonds… ‘When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
      For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today’” ~ John Maxwell Edmonds (1875 -1958)

      Namaste: What can readers do to help you?

      Elizabeth: “Talk about the Constitution. Research it. Know it. Know that it exists and help to keep it alive against the evil forces dedicated to its destruction. Please send donations however small, to Namaste Magazine for the Elizabeth Beckett Constitutional Legal Fund”


      A big thank you for all your generous donations! Donations so far have enabled Elizabeth to retain her home and prevent Cumbria’s Council (who unwittingly) continue to act on the liability order which is constitutionally illegal and against the homeowner, this resulted in a bankruptcy order being filed against her. Your donations were paid into court to cover this order in February 2008. Elizabeth was just days away from loosing the ownership of her home. She is deeply grateful, she can hardly express her thanks. She says, “It is so heart warming that people care”! Donations have also paid for travel costs for Elizabeth to meet with legal advisors who will represent her in court, for which donations will be needed. Elizabeth is constantly focused and always working to achieve her aims which is to save “our constitution for which our ancestors died ” this is the only protection against the ever-creeping tyranny which also should have protected us from being taken into Europe.


      Readers that have previously sent cheques to Namaste Magazine before December, Elizabeth has asked if you would please stop those cheques because although she sent them to her bank, they have now informed her that they have not been received. Would you be kind enough to check with your bank to see if the cheque has been drawn if not, would you please reissue your cheque and resend it to Namaste Publishing for Elizabeth as per the appeal details. Thank you so much!

      Elizabeth has further suggested the following: Readers should consider raising the following points as set out below, with their local council. Bear in mind that it is probable that Common Purpose is operating in you area. Councils cannot take taxes for an organisation that cannot achieve an audit. It is illegal under the Local Government Act 1972, which is still used for auditing local government accounts. All those who pay Council Tax should write to their local council and quote section 239 of the 1972 ACT.

      1). You as the Council have the right to oppose or depose acts in Parliament.
      Under your oaths of allegiance, the laws in the Bill of Rights of 1689 make clear this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.”
      They also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”.

      2). This law and its oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament.
      This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any bill like the 1972 EEC Act, the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.

      Chief Justice Beresford said; “You must look on the spirit of the law not just how it is written.”
      The Scots have their own version of this law. Indeed the people and Parliament were told the 1972 EEC Act was a purely trading agreement with no Constitutional impact at all!

      3). Since you use the Local Government Act for your audit, I wish to draw your attention to another services’ misdemeanour and that is you have been paying my council tax in to an unaudited administration (this is the 13th year).

      4). If I were to pay my Council Tax I would be complicit in this illegality. Even more seriously, I would be allowing without complaint, the present Government’s intention to herd this country over to this illegal administration.

      5). Under the powers given to you under section 239 you have the power to refuse to agree this and would be acting illegally if you did not.

      6). This applies to any council, PRESS them to ACT under these laws.
      Do you want to be like the judge acting illegally under European law? Or do you want to do something about it? We must never forget, our Constitution was made by our ancestors (often with their lives) not by Parliament.

      Elizabeth gave the following information for our American readers: As far as the American Constitution is concerned, Jefferson and co made a Masonic Constitution, but they did not wipe out the existing British Constitution on which the colonies had lived for two hundred years. This is the basis of your law and customs

      The English Constitution includes:

      1). Magna Carta, (which the Supreme court used for the release of the people in Guantanamo Bay

      2). The Petition of Right 1627

      3). The Bill of Rights of 1689

      4). The 1700 Act of Settlement

      These legal statutes were made by the people from whom the colonies are descended, only rubber stamped by British Parliament, (governing the colonies at the time) until independence. It is the basis of your Law and your Constitution. The United States Constitution is subject to the British Constitution.
      The only elements of the US Constitution that differ fron the British Constitution is the royal prerogative and Christianity. The prerogative can exceptionally be used by the President, but is not part of the law as it is with us in the UK. However, the people of the USA cannot rely on the ‘prerogative’, all they can do is find the relevant phrases that can fight orders. These can be found in the Bill of Rights 1689 and chapter 29 of Magna Carta. Good luck

      “Please remember that to possess INFORMATION,
      you must sift through mountains of disinformation (lies),
      misinformation (mistakes),
      and nonninformation (distractions).
      But first, you have to want to.”

      ~ Harold Thomas (late)
      A Search for the Truth is a Dangerous Thing

      For readers to understand. KNOW THIS.
      The ‘prerogative power’ is given to the monarch by the PEOPLE, under the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Magana Carta. The monarch agrees to protect our laws and customs under the Coronation Oath and the Constitution. Failure do so is TREASON against the people! We are protected from GESTAPO type (executive) law by the ‘prerogative’. This is what the New World order is trying to take away from us. This is our ancient law. Therefore, why has the monarch signed FIVE illegal treaties taking us into a crimalised organisation -the EU which is completely against our Constitution??

      Elizabeth has now applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation. (Anyone can and should do this). It is illegal for a government to be financially involved with an organisation that cannot even audit its own accounts. The EU has not audited its accounts for the past 13 years.

      Elizabeth, has informed us that recently, a local council representative had spoken to her by phone, they said they will block her High Court Appeal on the grounds it applies to the whole of England.


      Dear Mr Brown

      It appears that you are acting under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, imagining that you, as a Prime Minister, hold the ‘prerogative power.’

      Are you sir, aware of the meaning of the ‘PREROGATIVE POWER’?
      Have you taken constitutional legal advice on this very serious action of entry into the EU?

      If so from whom have you sought such advice?

      Are you aware that this is a serious crime against the People of Britain? It is TREASON.

      Yours Sincerely

      Mrs Elizabeth Beckett


      We ask readers to please to copy the above letter and replace Elizabeth’s name with their own name and send to number 10 Downing Street and see what response they get. All letters received from number 10 Downing Street to the above letter, if any, will be placed on this website. Please send to: Namaste Publishing, PO Box 127, Shrewsbuy SY3 7WS.


      24th December 2007

      There is a delay in the appeal for judicial review because the court in now informed Elizabeth that since a certificate of service has not been received by the court the case can’t move forward. The fact is the certificate of service was faxed to the court on 1st December by a government employee on Elizabeth’s behalf. She also has a letter from the local council dated 8th December, confirming receipt of the certificate of service and she has sent copies of the said letters to the court. Thus Elizabeth has asked the court for an upgrading of her case which has been delayed because they claimed they had not received the certificate of service.

      A notice is about to be served on Elizabeth for a court hearing in February 2008 to implement the bankcruptcy order made against her in March 2007. The hearing will take place in Carlisle.

      Interestingly, the interlocutory injunction filed by Elizabeth to stop Brown and his associates taking us, the People of the UK further into an illegal administrative situation, seems to be delayed lost in the system. How unusual!

      The hearing for the implementation for the liability order against Elizabeth will take place on the 6th February 2008 at Carlisle Court, Rickergate at 2.40pm. This was to validate the extent of her liabilty because her income is so low which has now been dealt with.

      27th February 2008

      Thanks to the generous donations received by members of the public, we were able to pay into court the £1,293.97 required to prevent the bankruptcy order against Elizabeth’s being executed. Her home has been saved for now. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still intends pursue her case against the illegal Liability Order

      27 May, 2008

      The legal advice that as been given to Elizabeth is that she should have professional to help in putting her case together so that it can go forward. This needs some reformulation for resubmission of her application before the administrative High Court.

      21 June, 2008

      Today, Elizabeth has been advised by the Penrith Magistrates that they have passed a Liability Order against her, for refusal to pay her Council tax. She has taken this stance in order that she can take her case foreward and therefore continues to pursue her application for judicial review against the illegality Liability Order in the Council Tax Act of 1992. Penrith Council have informed her she can appeal her case which she fully intends to do.

      Further updates on Elizabeth’s situation will be posted as and when we have more information. Please note, that what Elizabeth is doing, for all of us, not just for herslf, and therefore she needs all our support!
      7 February, 2009

      It is with great sadness that we share the news of the passing of Mrs Elisabeth Beckett after her fight against leukemia. Elisabeth was the daughter of a High Court judge. The fact she managed one last shot across the bows of the nation’s ever-dwindling sovereignty says so much about her steadfastness.
      see our tribute to her.

      Return to News That Is Not In The News




    8. Patriotic campaigner Bryan Smalley has produced two invaluable reports on the Regionalisation of Britain. Both are published below. The first is a diary account with concise factual information. There is also an article by Bryan on Churchill’s view of Europe

      The Regionalisation of Britain – a diary account

      Written by Bryan Smalley for The Campaign for an Independent Britain.

      This paper sets out to do two things:
      First – it demonstrates that Regionalisation of Britain is entirely an EU project.
      Second – it demonstrates that the White paper ‘Your Region Your Choice’ is a falsehood when it says that it will bring democracy closer to the people.

      The paper is necessarily short. It therefore doesn’t tell the whole story but gives a diary account.

      1965 – The EU published its first Memo on Regionalisation confirming that it is EU Policy. It has been updated from time to time since then – See May 2001

      1972 – Heath took Britain into the EU (EEC) declaring that there would be ‘no loss of Sovereignty. He passed the European Communities Act which made European law superior to British law. He was aware that this would be unpopular so he arranged that money which was returned to us from Brussels should come via the regions creating the impression that we were benefiting from our membership.

      1973 – Regional Development Fund established. Heath instituted Local Government re-organisation with a view to moving local government towards regionalisation.

      1975 – Prime Minister Harold Wilson organised a referendum on our membership. The government paper stated: ‘There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This threat has been removed. (From: ‘Your Vote Counts – Use it’. Issued by H.M. Government).

      1986 – Single European Act was passed ‘Regionalisation became the central policy of the EU’.

      1992 – The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) established the Committee of the regions with its Headquarters in Brussels.

      1992 – The European Commission published a map – ‘The European Community – a Community with no internal frontiers’. The map showed Great Britain which included Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and nine other regions. There was no mention of England.

      1995 – Following a review of the local government structure 46 Unitary authorities were established between 1995 and 1998. Evidence shown later in this paper proves that this was part of the regionalisation plan.

      1997 – Labour Government took office. It quickly introduced devolution (i.e. Regionalisation) in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & London leaving 8 remaining regions in England

      1998 – the Labour Government launched ‘the Democratic Renewable Debate’ and in the same year the Regional Development Agencies Act was passed allowing the establishment of Regional Development Agencies. RDAs co-ordinate Land use, Transport, Economic development, Agriculture, Energy & Waste. All RDAs have Brussels offices. Each region will ultimately have two sections of government: an elected assembly and a development agency.

      1999 – Regional Assemblies were established – Members are ‘stakeholders’ and councillors from local authorities. Representatives are appointed (i.e. not elected). The Government was aware that there would be some opposition to regionalisation and on the assumption that the Anglican Church would be seen as neutral and apolitical, it appointed Bishops as Chairmen of Constitutional Conventions. The purpose of these was to hold meetings to persuade local people that they had a ‘regional identity’.

      2001 – Committee of the Regions published its latest paper on Regionalisation entitled ‘Major Steps towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent’.

      2001- Government issued a Planning Green Paper. It removes County Councils from the planning process.

      15th November 2001, the DTLR Minister Lord Falconer stated in the House of Lords that ‘three tiers of Government are too many’ and the government is ‘looking at county and district councils’

      May 2002 the Government introduced its White Paper: ‘Your Region, Your Choice – Revitalising the English Regions’. It claims to: ‘Bring Democracy closer to the people’ and that the cost of running a region will be approximately £25 million. This is clearly untrue. Each Region will have 25 elected representatives looking after the region. This is far less than the County and District/ Borough Councillors at present and will make representatives unknown to most of the electorate.

      3rd Dec 2003. In answering a questions in House of Commons Nick Raynsford MP said: ‘Where an elected regional assembly is established, existing two tier local government will be restructured as unitary authorities. It is now quite clear that County and District/Borough Councils will be replaced with Unitary Authorities and Regions

      Also in 2003 the District Auditor upheld complaints that the North East Assembly was misusing funds by paying for the publication of propaganda promoting an elected assembly. This breached the Local Government Act. The Act gives councillors clear instructions regarding their behaviour as councillors. As a result, at the suggestion of John Prescott, some Regions have set themselves up as Limited Companies to protect their members against legal claims for misuse of public funds. They now claim that they are ‘directors’ rather than ‘councillors’

      Costs. The White Paper estimated that each assembly would require about £25 million a year to run. As a number of Regions have already been established it is possible to compare actual costs with estimates.

      Scotland. Although there was a perfectly adequate parliament building in Scotland, the new Parliament decided to build a new one at an estimated cost of £40 million. The cost has already escalated to £400 million. A public enquiry is being held after allegations of fraud in the placing of the contract. The cost of this enquiry is estimated at £1.5 million. Scotland used to be run by 5 ministers; there are now 20. Before devolution there were 3,336 officials working for the old Scottish Office; there are now 4,272, costing an extra £20 million.

      Wales. The total number of civil servants has risen from 2,250 to almost 3,400. The Welsh Assembly decided to build a three-storey modernistic glass debating chamber on the edge of Cardiff Bay for £12 million. In 2001, when the costs had reached £27 million the architect, Lord Rogers was sacked. The Assembly then advertised for a fixed-price builder. Taylor Woodrow Construction won the work and engaged Lord Rogers as a sub-contractor. The Assembly then announced that the cost of the work was £41 million, to which has to be added IT equipment, furnishings, professional fees and VAT. During the debate on whether Wales should have an Assembly, those in favour said its running costs would be covered through the money saved from abolishing quangos. In the event, the quangos were merged into the Assembly administration.

      Copyright on this paper is waived. It may be copied and Distributed.


      The Regionalisation of Britain by Bryan Smalley

      Very few people realise that Britain is being deliberately broken up into regions. The situation is complex because it does not stem entirely from the aims and ambitions of the EU, but the support for regionalisation is playing into the hands of the EU and helping it to acquire yet more control over our lives. It has been known for several decades that the Labour Party has intended to introduce regional government into this country, but it became clear that the EU was also bent on dissembling national governments by dividing them into regions when in 1965 it issued its ‘First Commission Communication on Regional Policy’. This was taken up by the Conservative government in 1969 when it established the Redcliffe-Maude Royal Commission which set the process in train.

      Over the past few years local authorities have become more and more reliant on central government grants. The distribution of these grants has become a matter of dispute by local authorities. In 1978, the Barnett formula was devised which allocates central government grants. This caused arguments between urban and rural areas each claiming that they had special needs. Scotland was particularly favoured by the formula which caused dissension in the impoverished North East of England. This is probably why the North East is the area which most favours regionalisation.

      Typically, the EU seized on this friction to accelerate its ambitions for regionalisation. The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) of 1992 gave authority to establish the EU’s Committee of the Regions (COR) which came into being in November 1993. The COR comprises 222 representatives of local and regional authorities. Its stated purpose is ‘to ensure that the public authorities closest to the citizen are consulted on EU proposals of direct interest to them, especially when they are responsible for implementing these policies after they are adopted’. But the smoke screen of consultation ignores the fact that the Regions will be responsible to Brussels. The UK has 24 seats on the committee. All representatives are appointed by central government. Once the Committee of the Regions was established, EU regionalisation began to move inexorably forward. In 1996 the idea of Regions was given further substance with the publication of the European Commission’s regional booklets. In these booklets all Regions are described in the same way. i.e. London in Europe, Scotland in Europe, Wales in Europe etc., making it clear that their allegiance is to the EU and that they are not free and independent.

      Soon after the Labour Party took office in 1997 it started the process of devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. Devolution is another term for regionalisation. This has unbalanced the Constitution in that MPs representing the regions with assemblies can legislate for England but English MPs cannot legislate for those regions. The Scottish Parliament now has legislative power over health, education, local government, housing, law & order and the implementation of the Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies.

      Now that the process has started, the aggrieved English regions are seeking this illusion of independence. Probably the most active area is the North East Region which will comprise Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Durham and Cleveland and is likely to be the first English Region. It is followed closely by the South West Region.

      In 1998 the Labour Government launched ‘the Democratic Renewable Debate’ and in the same year enacted the Regional Development Agencies Act (1998). The Act brought about the establishment of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in each of the the English Regions. RDA members are appointed by the government. They co-ordinate land use, transport, economic development, agriculture, energy and waste. All RDAs have Brussels offices.

      Each region will ultimately have two layers of government: an elected assembly and a development agency. For the time being the assemblies are not elected and are referred to as ‘chambers’. Regional Assemblies or Chambers first met in 1999. They oversee Regional Development Agencies in the 8 English regions. They are: East Midlands, West Midlands, North-West, North East, Eastern, South East, South-West and Yorkshire & Humber. Each Region will have a local capital and a seat of the elected assembly. In the South East it will be in Winchester and in the South West, Exeter. It can be seen that as these Regions acquire authority, the cohesion of England as a unit of Government within the UK will be eroded. To reinforce the EU Commission’s intention of destroying nation states it has established Euro-Regions. They link places which have never in recorded history been united, and they have little in common. Examples are: In Britain, East Sussex is linked with Haute-Normandy and Picardy. Kent is linked with Nord-Pas-de-Calais. In Denmark, the Copenhagen area is joined with Scania in Southern Sweden. German’s Euro-Regions tend to envelop land which Germany has claimed or annexed in the past. Examples are: Rhine-Waal – which includes part of the Netherlands; Southern Jutland which is linked with Schleswig Holstein which the Germans conquered and annexed from Denmark in 1864; Rhine-Maas which, is a German speaking area of Belgium, with part of Germany.

      With the encouragement of the RDAs, those supporting regionalisation have been holding meetings called Constitutional Conventions. Their aim is to convince people living within a region that they believe in a regional identity. The Church of England takes a leading role in this process. The Bishop of Durham (Rt. Rev. Michael Turnbull) chaired the Archbishop’s Committee on the organisation and regional structure of the Church of England which started its deliberations in 1995. He also chairs the North East Constitutional Convention. Additionally, the Bishop of Liverpool chairs the North West Constitutional Convention; the Bishop of Birmingham chairs the West Midlands Constitutional Convention, and the Bishop of Exeter chairs the South West Constitutional Convention. In 1996, the newsletter of the Church of England’s organisation ‘Christianity and the Future of Europe’ admitted that it had received in the previous four years, annual grants of between ECU 5,000 – 9,000 from the the Secretariat General of the EU, plus a grant of ECU 20,000 from the EU’s ‘Soul for Europe’ programme. It is widely rumoured that the Church of England is still receiving government aid for its schools and access to EU money for other projects on condition that its leaders continue to endorse the drive to disintegrate the United Kingdom and advance the creation of the nation of Europe. It may be that the Roman Catholic Church is receiving similar benefits. On 21st March 2001 the House of Lords discussed the possibility of introducing English Devolution to match that already established in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. The debate was initiated by the Bishop of Durham, with the Bishops of Wakefield and Hereford also present in support.

      On 16th March 2001 the European Movement held a meeting at Bristol University. Dr Caroline Jackson, Tory MEP, was asked whether Regional Assemblies would become Regional Governments and eventually cause Westminster to be abolished. She replied ‘Yes’. But on 19th May 2001 at a meeting of the South West Constitutional Convention chaired by the Bishop of Exeter, all the speakers except one denied any links with Brussels. The exception was Stefaan De Rynck, a Belgian, and a member of the European Commission Governance team. He stated that the Commission was working on a White Paper for governance of the Regions. The convention issued a press release concerning a petition requesting a regional assembly. Then in July 2001, President Prodi (EU) launched his White Paper ‘Reform of European Governance’.

      The ability for regions to by-pass Westminster has already been demonstrated. Scotland’s First Minister, Henry McLeish MSP, (now departed) signed the Colloquium of Constitutional Regions in Flanders. This entitles Scotland to participate directly in the debate on the future of Europe and in the preparatory work for the IGC scheduled for 2004. Other signatories are Bavaria, North-Rhine Westphalia, Catalonia, Salzburg, Wallonia and Flanders. One of Belgium’s aims whilst holding the EU Presidency was to give signatories to this document direct access to the European Court of Justice to settle their disputes with their national governments, thus demonstrating that these regions are partially independent of their national governments.

      On the 26th October 2001 at a special meeting of the Committee of the Regions Bureau, one item on the agenda was to discuss ‘a declaration on the role of regions with legislative powers in the Community decision making process. The aim is to put pressure on national governments to secure an active role for the COR in preparing for the next treaty reform’.

      The above short summary of the way the Westminster government is being superseded by regional government is not the full story. The process is being moved forward with considerable haste. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Local Government Secretary Stephen Byers are pressing ahead with reforms. The Labour government’s manifesto pledge is to introduce ‘directly elected regional government’. This will probably follow a referendum which the government will manipulate to achieve the required result. It will introduce another level of government but the DTLR Minister Lord Falconer has already stated in the House of Lords on 15th November 2001 that three tiers of Government are too many and they are ‘looking at county and district councils’. The net result will be to take government further away from the electorate and transfer even more sovereignty to Brussels.


      Churchill’s view of Europe – by Bryan Smalley

      One of the ways that those who support Britain’s membership of the EU attempt to justify their position is by stating that Churchill believed in a European Union. The Bishop of Norwich recently wrote ‘What was good enough for Churchill is good enough for me.’ (Sept. 2002). The incorrect assumption is that Churchill intended that Britain should become a member.

      The European Movement’s website contains the following passage:

      Britain’s Greatest Patriot and the founder of The European Movement said “And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take it’s rightful place with other great ‘groupings’ in shaping the destinies of men?”

      YOU can help make Sir Winston’s vision come to pass – Join The European Movement


      This article is a deliberate distortion of the truth. The quote which comes from a speech made by Churchill is taken completely out of context. Churchill believed that the German people had an inborn desire to rule Europe and that a European Union would be a way of curbing this, but he had no intention that Britain should be part of it. The quote is taken from a speech that Churchill delivered at the University of Zurich in September 1946, but it doesn’t convey the full message that Churchill was delivering. In the same speech he went on to say: ‘Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests … But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old – ‘Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?’ – we should reply with the words of the Shunamite woman: “Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people …’We must build a kind of United States of Europe … Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe’.

      This is a clear indication that Churchill supported an EU but from the outside as a ‘sponsor’.

      Even Jacques Delors confirmed this by saying: ‘Even that great European, Winston Churchill, envisaged European integration only for the countries of the European continent, not for Britain’. (Le Monde 3rd May 2000)

      Later on, Churchill was more outspoken when he said: ‘If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.’

      This summary of the case against Regional Assemblies for England has been prepared for East of England Regional Advice (EERA – see website It updates a paper I prepared in February 2002, shortly before the publication of the government’s White Paper on the subject. It tries to explains why we must all vigorously oppose Regional Assemblies. Here are some key points about the long-standing plan of the European Union, and those behind the E.U., to use Regional Assemblies as a means of undermining still further the sense of nationhood in this United Kingdom:

      1. Undermining of Parliament As Parliament’s existing powers over, e.g. education, health, transport, planning etc. are handed to the regions, it continues to weaken the authority and power of Parliament, already gravely weakened by the massive transfers of powers to Brussels.

      2. Passing power to Brussels
      The proposed Regional Assemblies, now operating as ‘shadow’ regional assemblies, already have strong links to Brussels, with E.U. observers on them. If and when they become elected, E.U. Directives from Brussels will be enforced directly by these regional assemblies and their funds will be increasingly drawn from Brussels not Westminster.

      3. ‘A Europe of Strong Regions’
      There is voluminous literature published by various E.U. institutions emphasising that Europe is to be a ‘A Europe of Strong Regions’. It doesn’t take an Einstein or rocket scientist to work out that a ‘Europe of Strong Regions’ is likely therefore to be one of relatively weak nations. The President of the Committee of the Regions recently described regions as “a factor of European integration”.

      4. Pre-Planning
      Evidence that break-up of the government of England into nine Regional Assemblies has been meticulously planned over at least two decades includes:
      (1) The existence and activities of the E.U.’s ‘Committee of the Regions’. The plan is for each of the 111 already-mapped-out regions of the European Union each to send a total of four representatives to the Euro Committee of the Regions in Brussels. It is a classic case of undermining the role and influence of national Parliaments. The legal basis of the Committee of the Regions was established by the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Its main provisions (Articles 263-5) are:
      (a) each Region to send two delegates and two ‘alternates’ to the Committee
      (b) England (population 45 million) is to have nine regions and 36 representatives; by comparison Luxembourg (population 350,000) has three ‘regions’ and 12 representatives! – so much for ‘leading in Europe’
      (c) the Committee of the Regions will be ‘advisory’ only i.e. just like the European Parliament, it will be able to say whatever it likes, but ultimately the European Commission and the Council of Ministers decide
      (d) members of the Committee of the Regions must make their decisions ‘in the general interest of the European Community’ and ‘may not be bound by any mandatory instructions’! To sum it up, the Committee of the Regions means 444 extra representatives to pay for in Europe, plus their staff, travel and other expenses – as has been admirably summarised, ‘another costly waffle shop’
      (2) The creation of the new regional boundaries well over a decade ago – and used in the 1999 Euro Parliament elections
      (3) The map in the foyer of the European Commission office in London, titled: “Local Authorities in the United Kingdom”. Each Euro-region of England is shown in a separate bold colour!
      (4) The creation during the past few years of the following, all with the same Euro-regional boundaries: (a) Government Offices for each region, (b) Regional Development Agencies, (c) Regional Assemblies (all unelected)
      (5) Many institutions already use the proposed Euro-regional boundaries for the purpose of their internal organisation: Legal Services Commission (Legal Aid Board), Tourist Boards, Federation of Small Businesses. In addition, all government departments have for many years used the proposed Euro-region boundaries for their internal organisation
      (6) As long ago as 1992, Companies House changed their forms. From then on, the forms asked companies to state the ‘County/Region’ of their registered office (previously County only)
      (7) The European Union’s own web-site! Visit the website of the ‘Committee of the Regions’ and you’ll find the ‘Chart of Progress towards Regionalisation: Major Steps towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent”. I defy anyone to visit that site and say that regional government has ‘nothing to do with Europe’ Their own chart boasts the following milestones on the way to regional government for Britain (and these are is only selected extracts):
      (a) 1951 Foundation of Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) set up to ‘…make regions sufficiently strong and able to deal with their central state and to fight for the political union of Europe’
      (b) 1965 First European Commission Statement on Regional Policy
      (c) 1969 Second European Commission Statement on Regional Policy
      (d) 1975 European Regional Development Fund set up
      (e) 1979 Regional ‘Structural Reform’ Funds set up
      (f) 1984 First European Parliament Conference on the Regions
      (g) 1985 Assembly of European Regions set up
      (h) 1988 Consultative Council of Regional and Local Authorities set up
      (i) 1991 Second European Parliament Conference on the Regions, and
      (j) 1991 Charter of the Regions of the European Community issued
      (k) 1994 Inaugural Session of the Committee of the Regions
      (l) 1996 Third European Parliament Conference on the Regions
      (m) 1997 European Charter of Regional Self-Government and
      (n) 1997 Amsterdam Summit of the Regions and Cities of Europe
      (o) 1998 Inaugural Session of the Second Mandate of the Committee of the Regions
      (8) Lambrini Yalamboukidou of the E.U. Committee of the Regions said in March 2001:
      “For the founding fathers of the E.E.C., things were already quite clear: even more than economic ambitions, the Community needed to have political ambitions. The Committee has applied itself to…the establishment of new forms of governance”
      If anyone doubts the extensive European involvement already in the Euro Regions, take these Minutes from an ‘East of England Region’ document as far back as 1999: “The East of England must have an effective voice in Europe…our ‘Europe Working Group’ has considered issues relating to the legislative framework, business developments, funding and resource opportunities and European Union regional policy development…we have worked with the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Region’s Brussels office…regions like the East of England in Europe often find more in common with a region on the edge of a capital city like Paris, Brussels, Stockholm or The Randstadt in the Netherlands”. They spoke of their progress as ‘a leading region in Europe’ (i.e. not the United Kingdom).

      5. The Abolition of the Counties
      Integral to the Regional Assembly plan is the abolition of the Counties, and their replacement by unitary authorities. A good example is the South West Region, where the shadow Regional Assembly has already proposed in writing the carve-up of the region into unitary authority boundaries. No County boundary survives! The proposed boundaries of the unitary authorities cut right across existing county boundaries. It must be clearly understood that those who support Regional Assemblies support the destruction of English counties (whether or not they are aware that they do so). Local Government Minister in the Lords, Lord Falconer, conceded to Parliament in November 2001 that: “If one has a Regional Assembly and two other tiers, that looks to be too many. As to which is the right one to remove, it is not for me to say at this stage” (Hansard). But other government Ministers have dropped heavy hints that the Counties will go, and the Conservative Shadow Minister for Local Giovernment, Malcolm Moss, said: “The cat is out of the bag. Labour’s plans for Regional Assemblies will mean the abolition of England’s historic Shire Counties. Rather than devolving responsibilities to local communities, Labour are going to transfer power to a new tier of regional politicians”.

      6. Regional Archives
      If one had any doubt about the plan to abolish the Counties, let’s examine the activities of the ‘Regional Archive Committees’. Already they have been planning, for well over 10 years, the dissolution of County Record Offices and other County archives – with a view to creating Regional Archives. Years have been spent re-cataloguing archives on a regional basis. A report from Mr Steve Reed (Glastonbury, Somerset) states that there already exists: (a) a South West Region Museums Council, (b) a South West Regional Archive Council, and (c) a South West Regional Library System. It is believed that similar Councils and systems exist in other regions but we have not had time to research this. It is also known that a Non-Governmental Organisation, the Museum Association, has been running a series of ‘regional roadshows’ and setting up regional organisations for a number of years. At its 2000 Annual Conference, its Director, Mark Tyler, said: “Regional Museums in England are the most significant initiative of the last 20 years”. One seminar at this Conference was entitled: “Regional Strategies”.

      7. Regional Flags
      In the North East, the Regional Assembly has already had a competition to design a flag for the proposed North East Region. Let it be noted that many buildings in Scotland now fly the Scottish Saltire alongside the European Union flag with the Union Flag nowhere to be seen. The shape of things to come?

      8. Our history
      Just as France has a tradition of ‘Departements’ and Germany a history of ‘Laender’ (Regions), English history has a tradition, since the establishment of shires by the Kings of Wessex, of ‘Shire Counties’. Regional government and the abolition of Counties will destroy this link with our history. In short, Shire Counties are part of our national identity. The Yorkshire/ Humber Euro-region does, it is true, approximate to the former boundaries of Yorkshire. But no other County will survive the creation of Regional Assemblies.

      9. ‘Divide and Conquer’
      A technique of powerful empires from time immemorial has been to break up powerful states into subservient regions or ‘vassal’ states. For example, the eurosceptic Campaign for an Independent Britain used the metaphor ‘Divide and Conquer’ for its own leaflet on why Regional Assemblies should be opposed.

      10. The Agenda against the Nation-State
      Let’s look at the statements of some of those most closely associated with promoting regional government in Britain. Take Labour MP Roy Hattersly: “The old nation-state is, in the modern world, too small to take some decisions, and too big to take others. Power has to be passed up to Europe and out to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. In a hundred years’ time, politicians will marvel that anyone ever thought otherwise”. Take Michael Davey, current Chair of the North East Regional Assembly: “We are talking about bringing national government down to a regional level”. A leading supporter of Regional Assemblies is Charter 88. On their website, they quote with approval the 1994 statements of Neal Acherson, a member of the pro-E.U. Federal Trust Round Table:
      – “the British doctrine of sovereignty is wrong, obsolete and pernicious…”
      – “the unreformed British state…is incompatible with European norms”
      – “increasing unity at the European surface and increasing diversity at regional level are in fact parts of a single development, the weakening of the nation-state…that’s why Maastricht designed fresh steps to supranational unity…and included the Committee of the Regions to ensure national powers were devolved to the regions”

      11. Regional Identity? The Campaign for the English Regions, a pro-Regional Assembly body funded by obscure charities and other funds believed to come from the E.U., speaks of each region having ‘a distinct identity and culture’. Are they right? Many would argue that England has a distinct identity and culture. Take our region, the so-called ‘East of England’. Do the people of Watford share a ‘distinct identity and culture’ with the people of the Norfolk Broads or the ‘Fenmen’ of east Cambridgeshire? (both in the proposed Region). No wonder when MORI Opinion Polls did a survey of public opinion about regional identity in 2000, a mere 11% of those questioned said they felt any affinity at all with an entity called the ‘East of England Region’. Try telling the people of Cornwall, for example, that they share a ‘distinct identity and culture’ with people in Bristol!. Yet they’re both in the same (South-West) Euro-region. Do the rural dwellers of north Oxfordshire share a ‘distinct identity and culture’ with the people of the tourist resorts of Kent and Sussex? (all in the South-East Euro-region). A recent meeting of the South-East Regional Assembly was held in London. An observer in that meeting astutely commented:
      “The South-East Region is a totally artificial construct, has no identity, no obvious centre or focus either geographically or economically within it…so the Committee met outside the region, in London”. In the North East and Yorkshire, for example, people may well have a stronger sense of regional identity than in, say, the Home Counties. But elsewhere, the Regional Assembly fans are going to have their work cut out to manufacture a ‘regional identity’ which simply doesn’t exist.

      12. Remote Government Under Regional Assemblies, many local authority functions now carried out County level will go to these new bodies. Inevitably, that makes local accountability, participation in the local government process and democracy more remote and difficult.

      13. A Recipe for Squabbling In general, local decision-making is good, though that should mean at the County and District levels. But important issues for the national well-being should be decided nationally. Two Scottish Parliament decisions, for example, have led to controversy: 1) abolishing student tuition fees, and (2) proposing the abolition of home care charges. These decisions make regional government sound like paradise – Scotland appears to benefit from having its own Parliament (we must noted here that Scotland has years had a disproportionately generous central government grant under the so-called ‘Barnett formula’- to meet its higher welfare needs). The result of Scotland abolishing tuition fees and home care charges will be that other parts of the country will want the same. In the longer-term, there is the prospect of national services like the health and education services having vastly different policies and standards from one region to another. We can be sure that if Regional Assemblies develop and start making radical policy decisions, controversy and jealousy between one region and another will inevitably develop. To a certain extent, there is already local decision-making. Take ’bus passes for example. Some areas have poor schemes; others have generous ones. But policy decisions for major national services should be consistent across the nation, otherwise it will become a ‘disunited kingdom’. And as funds become ever more channelled via Brussels, English regions will be fighting against each other in Brussels over their rightful share of the ‘European cake’. Westminster will eventually have no funds of its own and no policy role at all. That is the deliberate and sinister aim of those promoting and supporting Regional Assemblies

      14. England uninvited to the Brussels ‘Constitutional Convention’
      A major E.U.-wide conference, lasting over two years, began this spring in Brussels. It is being held to discuss the constitutional future of the E.U. – in particular, to develop a written constitution for the coming Euro-state. Representatives from many ‘E.U. regions’, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be invited because they have law-making powers. Wales may get an invitation as their Assembly has limited law-making powers. But England isn’t invited, nor will any part of England be invited to meetings of this ‘Constitutional Convention’ – not unless and until we get regional government here with law-making powers in each region. Those regions which get law-making powers will then be able to take seats at meeting of the Constitution Convention. Could the E.U. agenda of killing off the unity and identity of England by Regional Assemblies be any plainer?

      15. Britain’s government and the E.U.’s compared:

      British system E.U. system

      Westminster Parliament Commission & Council of Ministers
      with rubber-stamp Parliament

      Government Departments Committee of the Regions

      County Councils Regional Parliaments/Assemblies

      District/City/Borough Councils Unitary Authorities

      Parish/Town Councils Community Councils

      16. The Church of England’s role in promoting Regional Government
      The fact that senior Church of England Bishops have taken a leading and proactive role in trying to build public support for Regional Assemblies might suggest that regional government must be a ‘good thing’. Let those who are tempted to do so look at history and they will see that very often the worst abuses of mankind are committed when religious leaders become actively involved in advancing the government’s agenda. The burning of 284 Protestants for the offence of ‘heresy’ in Queen Mary’s reign (1553-8) is a classic example. The Roman Catholic leaders of the day co-operated with the state in the arrest and execution of those who did not consent to the Church’s teachings. An insight into how these Bishops are thinking comes in a letter from the Bishop of Worcester to a campaigner against Regional
      Assemblies: “Your ‘eurosceptic’ position is extreme, if I may say so. It rests on a belief that it is possible to recover patterns of national sovereignty which were appropriate to previous ages and which in a globalised world are simply unavailable. We live at a time when the only way for nations to flourish culturally, as well as economically, is to pool sovereignty with others in a pattern of international agreements that make for the best balance between central, regional and local governments…” The Bishop of Manchester, commenting on Regional Assemblies for the North West and North East wrote: “The Bishops of Durham and Liverpool have involved themselves in the appropriate Regional Constitutional Conventions and deserve our prayerful support for the work that they are doing”.


      This material is not copyright but due acknowledgement to EERA (East of England Regional Advice) would be welcomed including if possible the website address

      Prepared for East of England Regional Advice (EERA) by Tony Bennett
      66 Chippingfield HARLOW Essex CM17 0DJ. Tel: 01279 635789
      e-mail: – 4th Sept 2002.
      Copies of this briefing paper available free, direct from him

      Tony Bennett
      66 Chippingfield
      CM17 0DJ
      Tel/Fax: 01279 635789


      Frederick Forsyth, author and patriotic defender of our England of historic counties, received a surprise letter from the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) inviting him to become an ‘East of England Ambassador’. Read EEDA’s letter below and Mr Forsyth’s response in which he turns down the chance of becoming ‘Ambassador’.

      Dear Mr Forsyth

      East of England – space for ideas
      A chance to contribute

      By 2010 the East of England Region region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe. Made up of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, the East of England is a diverse and fascinating region and one that you are closely associated with.

      Key to its future success will be our ability to promote the East of England on the world stage. One way that our goal will be achieved, for the good of all who live, work, visit and invest in the region, is by building a strong brand for the region. This brand is called ‘East of England – space for ideas’.

      In 2004 we, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) have some very exciting plans for the brand. And this is where we would like your help. A diverse mix of companies, individuals and organisations has already committed their assistance, and as a recognised member of the regional community I would like to invite you to become an East of England ambassador.

      I will call your offices over the next week to explore the possibility of setting up a 15-minute East of England – space for ideas introduction meeting to talk you through both the commercial and non-commercial opportunities available. Please be assured that any commitment you do make will take up a minimum amount of your time. If, in the meantime, you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 226 0803/07771 964 595 or email

      Through collective effort and commitment we hope:

      ‘to make the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here’ East of England strategic review goal 2002

      Ambitious as it might be, we are all 100% committed to our goal and would ask you to recognise both the personal and community based rewards of investing in the East of England’s future.

      I look forward to speaking to you and/or your representative over the coming weeks.

      Yours sincerely,

      Kevin Caruth
      On behalf of East of England – space for ideas


      Dear Mr Caruth

      For some ten years, since I became fascinated by the sheer duplicity and mendacity of the Europe Project I have studied it with some intensity and no little research. I presume you are in the same position, so we need not fool each other.

      We both know that, for the Europe of (say) 2010 (your own choice) there are only two viable visions. One is what we thought, back in 1972, we were being inducted into until we learned we had been comprehensively lied to. This was the Europe De Gaulle had referred to as ‘Une Union des Patries.’ Brits have always translated this as ‘A Europe of Nations’. It is what the Conservative Party has always claimed to support and what New Labour also pretends to seek, though once again it is lying.

      Basically, a confederation of self-governing and sovereign nation-states who have chose by free volition to cooperate towards a goal of enhanced mutual prosperity by the creation of a huge Free Market. That vision was effectively terminated by euthanasia in the Maastricht Treaty, though fools and liars continue to employ the phrase.

      The other vision can best be described in the title of a recent pamphlet from the Comite des Regions in Brussels: ‘A Europe of Cities and Regions in an Integrated Continent.’ This is a Europe where so-often pooh-poohed words like ‘ever closer union’, ‘complete political integration’ and United States of Europe, have become literal realities. That clearly is the vision to which you and yours aspire with self-denying fanaticism.

      But like all Euro-integrationists, you are being less than frank with the public. Behind the Utopian propaganda lie several less happy truths. The creation of the USE and the continuation of the nation-state are quite simply mutually incompatible. The creation of the USE must mean the End-of-Nation, now at last being openly mentioned in print, though a long-held dream of the Post-Modernists.

      Now I happen to be one of the (approx) ninety per cent of the citizens of the UK who regard this country with love, affection and loyalty. I find the end-of-nation, with its concomitant partner end-of-democracy anathema. So I look carefully at how this nightmare might be achieved.

      Clearly not by free vote, by fair referendum. Therefore, as ever, by deception, mendacity, dissimulation and fraud. But via which vehicles? One is clearly the abrogation and abolition of the national currency. There has never been a single example in history of a nation abolishing its currency to adopt the currency of a larger neighbouring unit which was still a self-governing country ten years later.

      Second, there is abolition of the national constitution, or its supercession by another alien constitution. Parliamentary democracy is the only known governmental system which requires as an absolute need the consent of the governed. All other systems are variants of dictatorship. What Giscard d’Estaing has prepared (and Gisela Stuart MP recently confirmed this in her brilliant Fabian Society pamphlet) is a blueprint for oligarchy, warmly supported by all the oligarths of Europe and the UK. That is why Tony Blair dare not permit the people to speak.

      The third way of terminating the nation-state is break-up. That is your chosen road. If you can break provincial England into eight parts, an unavoidable development must then be the abolition of District, Shire, and Borough as units of real local government. That is a given, even admitted by Prescott in an unguarded moment.

      The second unavoidable consequence must be the reduction to irrelevance of the national government and its Parliament at Westminster. But there must be two levels of government, for the Region cannot be a nation-state on its own. It must defer to something bigger than itself. That ‘something’ if not Westminster, Crown in Parliament, can only be the Federal Government of the USE in Brussels. QED.

      So when you say to me: ‘By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,’ you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: ‘By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region….’ etc.

      Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all of the time.’ Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.

      But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker’s yard.

      So, Mr Caruth, until Philippi, ave atque vale.

      Frederick Forsyth – 27 February 2004



      It is distrurbing that the government has recruited Church of England Bishops to chair constitutional conventions in the regions, to give a spurious air of legitimacy to bodies that lack popular interest or support.

      And of course there is the European angle. When I went to Brussels as a prospective Euro-candidate in 1998, an established Tory MEP John Corrie told me: Roger, in ten years time there will be no Westminster parliament. We shall have a Britain of regions governed from Brussels.








      But there can be no doubt that the EU is using it to drive a new model of governance. Regional government is promoted, strong links formed between regions and Brussels, and national governments sidelined. Prescott’s plans play directly to this agenda.

      Those of us who believe in our country, and in genuinely accountable local democracy, must do all we can to stop the regionalisation band-wagon.









    10. In 1961, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is born in Monbassa Maternity Hospital in Kenya to an unwed mother from Kansas, Stanley Ann Dunham, and an already married black Muslim father from Kenya, Barack Obama, Sr.
      In 1963, Bernardine Dohrn, who would become a domestic terrorist, co-founder of the domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, and fellow dometic terrorist Bill Ayers’ wife, graduates from the University of Chicago with a B.A. in Political Science and Education.

      1n 1965, William (Bill) Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are inspired by Saul Alinsky’s radical political philosophy and join a leftist political group called the Students for Democratic Socialism (SDS) that has just been founded at Michigan State University.

      In the mid-1960s, Columbia Sociology Professor Richard A. Cloward and his wife, Francis Fox Piven, are inspired by the radical political philosophy of Saul Alinsky (from Chicago). Based on Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals, Cloward & Piven devise a powerful strategy to that hinges on creating social class warfare to force America’s capitalistic democratic republic to CHANGE into a totalitarian socialist state.

      From 1965-1968, Ayers, Dohrn, and other SDS members participate in sit-ins and other kinds of peaceful demonstrations to protest the Vietnam War and to speak out for social injustice.

      In 1966, in an effort to put their strategy for socio-political change into action, Cloward & Piven establish the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).

      In 1967, six-year-old, Barry Soeto [Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.] moves with his mother and her Muslim Indonesian husband, Lolo Sueto, to live in Jakarta, indonesia. While there, Barry attends a muslim public elementary school followed by a catholic private school. Barry’s religion is listed as Muslim and his citizenship is recorded as Indonesian.

      In 1967 Cloward & Piven recruit a member of Students for a Socialistic Society (SDS) and follower of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, George A. Wiley, to run National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).

      In 1967, Bernardine Dohrn, graduates with a J.D. degree from the School of Law at the University of Chicago.

      In 1968, Ayers graduates with a B.A. in American Studies from Michigan State University.

      In 1969, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, co-found the Weathermen domestic terrorist group.

      In 1970, Wiley passes the mantle at NWRO to fellow member of Students for Democratic Socialism (SDS), Wade Rathke, who also subscribes to Saul Alinsky’s radical political philosophy. Rathke expands the NWRO into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now(ACORN).

      From 1969 to 1975, Ayers, Dohrn, and others in the WUO actively and radically protest America’s involvement in the Vietnam War and the nation’s social injustice that they feel is based on racial discrimination by stages the “Days of Rage” in downtown Chicago, bombing federal buildings, police stations, and a judges’ home.

      In 1975, at age 14 Barry Soeto [Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr.] returns with his newly divorced mother and his half-sister, Maya, from Indonesia to Honolulu, Hawaii.

      In 1975, after losing 3 “weathermen” terrrorists in a bomb-making accident and being that they are now on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List, Ayers & Dohrn “go underground”. While under assumed identities, they continue to call the shots on the radical terrorist actions of what is now known as the Weather Underground Organization (WUO).

      From 1975-1979, Barry Soeto goes back to using the name Barack Obama, attends an exclusive prep style high school during the day, and after school is “mentored” like a father by an older black man who is a former communist agent (Obama refers to this man in his memoir). In his later years in high school, Barack “does cocaine and smokes pot” with students in the “druggie group”.

      In 1976, Dohrn, Ayers, and other Weathermen, Jones, and Sanchez publish a book entitled, “Prairie Fire” (New York, Red Dragon Press) that is a memoir of their activities in the domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground.

      In 1979, Barack graduates from high school.

      In 1979, Barack moves to California to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles. While at Occidental College, Barack continued to party and he found himself bored with his courses.

      1980, Ayers and Dohrn come out of hiding in Ayers’ hometown of Chicago and give themselves up to police. Due to irregularities in the legal prosecution of his case, Ayers is not convicted of any of his crimes. Dohrn is fined $15,000, serves 6 months in prison on felony counts, and completes years of probation.

      1980, (while his wife is completing her prison sentence), unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers, uses his wealthy father’s influence to get Mayor Daley of Chicago (the current Mayor Daley’s father) to arrange for a job in teaching for him. The school where he was given a position was a single building for multiple grades and its teachings followed a “free school” curriculum. Within a few months Ayers became the principal of that school.

      In 1981, at age 20, Barack travels on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan. He also travels to rural Kenya to visit his “Granny”, his father, his older half-brother, George, and the rest of the family on his father’s side.

      In 1981, Barack moves to New York City to attend Columbia University.

      From 1981-1983, Barack takes courses to complete his undergraduate degree at Columbia University which is located on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City at 116th Street and Broadway. While there, Barack had a Muslim roommate (from Egypt?) who was studying on a student visa. This roommate was recently located by FOXNews, but he did not want to be interviewed. From Barack’s memoir we also know that Barack was involved with the Black Student Association while at Columbia.

      From 1981-1983, unrepentent domestic terrorist,Ayers, works as a teacher in Chicago Public Schools.

      In 1982, Barack’s father dies in a car accident.

      In 1982 or 1983, Barack may have taken a course in sociology as part of his Poli Sci major from Professor Cloward while at Columbia and in that course become exposed to the Cloward-Piven strategy of manufactured crisis to bring about socio-economic change.] There was a chapter of Students for Democratic Socialism (SDS) which esposed the radical political philosophy of Saul Alinsky on the Columbia campus at that time Barack was a student there.

      In 1983, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers, and convicted felon and unrepentent domestic terrorist, Dohrn, also move to New York City so Ayers can attend the Bank Street College of Education which is located at 610 West 112th Street.

      In 1983, Barack graduates with a B.A. in Political Science from Columbia University in New York City. Prior to graduation, Barack wrote many letters of interest, but received no job offers.

      From 1983-1984, for a little less than one year, Barack works for Business International Corporation (a company that provides international business information to corporate clients).

      In 1984, Barack works for a short time on a losing campaign in an Assemblyman’s race in Brooklyn, NY.

      From 1984-1985, (for about one year) Barack works as a low-paid ($10,000/year) community organizer for New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) on the campus of the City College of New York at 138th Street and Convent Avenue. Barack’s job was to “mobilize student volunteers”. According to their web site, “NYPIRG is New York State’s largest student-directed consumer, environmental and government reform organization. NYPIRG is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit group established to effect policy reforms while training students and other New Yorkers to be advocates”.

      In 1984, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers graduates with an M.A. in Early Childhood Education from Bank Street College of Education at 610 West 112th Street in New York City.

      From 1984-1987, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers attends graduate school in the School of Education at Columbia University located at 116th Street and Broadway. While at Columbia, Ayers also works as an instructor in the Pre-service Program in Elementary Education in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching in the Teachers College (1985-1987).

      From 1984-1988, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, works a paralegal in the Sidley & Austin Law Firm in New York City while she attempts to get admitted to the New York or Illinois State Bar Association. Dohrn would not renounce her domestic terrorism so she is not admitted to either Bar Association and she must work as a paralegal.

      In 1985, Barack “spotted an intriguing help-wanted ad in The New York Times. The Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC), a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago’s South Side into agents of social change, was looking for a community organizer to run the group’s inner-city arm, the Developing Communities Project (DCP). Obama soon arranged to meet in New York with the organizer heading up the job search.”

      From 1985-1988, Barack works in Chicago as a community organizer for $10,000/year and a used car. Having been hired by Gerald Kellman, Obama works as staffer for the Developing Communities Project, to work with churches on the city’s industrial South Side (Altgeld Gardens) and organize workers who had lost their jobs due to the steel mill and factory closings.

      In 1987, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers, graduates with an M.A. AND an Ed.D. in Education and Curriculum from the Teacher’s College of Columbia University in New York City and moves back to Chicago.

      At the beginning of the summer of 1987, Michelle Robinson (Obama) takes a position as a summer associate in the Sidley & Austin Law Firm in New York City. While there, she works with and gets to know unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, (wife of Bill Ayers), who is a paralegal in the same firm.

      [A plausible scenario for how Ayers and Obama meet is the following] In the fall of 1987, while he’s working as a community organizing efforts, Barack Obama is introduced to unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, while both of them are “working” the Chicago & Detroit Teacher’s Strike of 1987.

      From 1987-1992, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers, is employed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Evaluation, at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

      In 1988, Barack Obama moves to Boston, MA and attends Harvard Law School.

      At the beginning of the summer of 1989, Barack Obama takes Tom Ayers (Bill Ayer’s father) up on a favor he’s offered and takes a position as a summer intern in the Sidley & Austin Law Firm in New York City. The junior associate who is put in charge of overseeing his work is Michelle Robinson (Obama). Barack is introduced to Michelle by her coworker, friend, and unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn.

      In 1991, Barack graduates with a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.

      In 1991, Barack is named President of the Harvard Law Review and spends his time in that position writing his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father”.

      In 1992, Barack moves back to Chicago.

      From 1992-1995, Obama is an associate with the Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland Law Firm in Chicago.

      From 1993-2002, Obama serves on the board of the Woods Fund with unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers.

      From 1992-1996, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Ayers, is employed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Evaluation, at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

      According to Ayers’ CV, all grants he received were obtained for the support of the Small Schools Workshop and/or the Chicago Forum for School Change at the University of Illinois at Chicago, co-director, or principal investigator.

      In 1991-1992, Ayers receives a grant from the MacArthur Foundation for $150,000.

      In 1992 Obama takes time off to direct Project Vote; it is a very lucrative voter registration drive. Afterward, his efforts were so successful that he is asked by the head of ACORN in Chicago to train all of her community organizers in his organizing methods.

      In 1992-1993, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $410,205 from the Dreihaus Foundation ($10,000), Community Trust ($40,000), Coalition of Essential Schools ($61,205), Joyce Foundation ($74,500), and the MacArthur Foundation ($225,000).

      In 1993-1994, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $128,761 from the Wieboldt Foundation ($5,000), Schott Foundation ($7,000), New Prospects ($5,000, $5,000), Relations Foundation ($7,000, $10,000), McDougal Foundation ($10,000), and Joyce Foundation ($79,761).

      From 1994-2002, Barack Obama serves as Director on the board of the Joyce Foundation in Chicago for $70,000/year.

      1995-1999, Obama serves as the founding Chairman of the Board for a philanthropic organization that unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, secured the grant funding for that is called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

      In 1994-1995, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $832,705 from the Wieboldt Foundation ($10,000), Joyce Foundation ($88,000), the MacArthur Foundation ($100,000, $224,000), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      In 1995-1996, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $9,346,680 from the Relations Foundation ($15,000), Reader’s Digest ($19,274), Woods Fund ($20,000), MacDougal Foundation ($25,000), Joyce Foundation ($88,000), and MacArthur Foundation ($100,000, $290,406), the Annenberg Challenge ($175,000), Chicago Public Schools ($414,000), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      From 1996-2002, Barack Obama serves as a State Senator for the state of Illinois.

      In 1996-1997, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $9,599,826 from Reader’s Digest ($19,274), the Joyce Foundation ($88,000, 112,333), MacArthur Foundation ($275,000), Chicago Public Schools Goals 2000 ($45,219), Annenberg Challenge ($260,000), Chicago Public Schools ($600,000), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      In 1997-1998, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $8,331,607 from Reader’s Digest ($19,274), the Joyce Foundation ($112,333), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      In 1998-1999, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $8,331,607 from Reader’s Digest ($19,274), the Joyce Foundation ($112,333), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      In 1999-2000, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $8,227,274 from Bright Futures Venture ($8,000), Reader’s Digest ($19,274), and the Annenberg Challenge as co-founder and grant writer ($8,200,000).

      In 2000, Barack Obama runs for U. S. Congress and loses.

      In 2000-2001, unrepentent domestic terrorist and early childhood educator, Ayers, receives grants totaling $75,000 from Dreihaus ($20,000),Fry Foundation ($20,000), and Woods Fund ($35,0000).

      In 2005, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers [accompanied by his wife and fellow terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn], gives a presentation in Venezuela to Hugo Chavez and other government officials on the importance of Ayers’ brand of educating the young to the success of Hugo Chavez’ Marxist Bolivarian Revolution.

      In 2004, Obama runs for the U.S. Senate with support from the New Party, Students for Democratic Socialism (SDS), and the Democratic Party and wins.

      In 2006, unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers [accompanied by his wife and fellow terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn], gives a presentation in Venezuela to Hugo Chavez and other government officials on the importance of Ayers’ brand of educating the young to the success of Hugo Chavez’ Marxist Bolivarian Revolution.

      In 2006, Obama announces his run for the U.S. Presidency.

      In 2007, Obama travels to Kenya on the taxpayer’s dime to endorse his cousin, Raila Odinga’s, bid for the Presidency in Kenya. Odinga who is well known to be Marxist and a very dangerous man, is seen being endorsed by his American cousin, a sitting U.S. Senator, while he campaigns throughout Kenya. The cousin Odinga loses and unleashes weeks of pillaging, burning, and killing until his rival who won the election by a slim margin concedes and gives him the title of Prime Minister.

      In 2008, Obama wins his party’s nomination for President on the Democratic ticket and names U.S. Senator Joe Biden as his running mate.

      Acorn chapters across the nation unleash Obama’s version of an election with voter fraud and “early” voting in Ohio.

      It is estimated that one-third of all voters will have cast their ballot BEFORE Election Day….

      AND THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY – Where do we go from here?

      1 posted on 11 October 2008 14:37:28 by BIOCHEMKY
      [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

      To: BIOCHEMKY; All
      Guilty Party: ACORN, Obama, and the mortgage mess
      Mona Charen, September 30, 2008
      An ACORN Falls from the Tree: A congressional outrage
      Ken Blackwell, September 29, 2008

      Inside Obama’s Acorn:
      By their fruits ye shall know them
      Stanley Kurtz, May 29, 2008

      “What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.”


      Both Wiley and Rathke were influenced by Chicago’s radical activist Saul Alinsky and by the strategies set forth in his books, Reveille for Radicals (1964) and Rules for Radicals (1971). Disruption, intimidation, physical abuse, and ability to adapt to shifting political events are mainstays of the Alinsky rules and his end-justifies-the-means mentality. Rathke had been active in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), known for its violence, and in the domestic terrorist group, the Weathermen, which bombed government offices. William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, Chicago friends of Obama, also were members of SDS and the Weathermen. Obama chaired the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, funded by a grant obtained by Ayers. For six years, Obama and Ayers worked closely on this liberal boondoggle meant to improve education that was terminated in 2002.
      American needs to understand how bad these people really are…




    11. (note: it is not a trial, but a hearing before an administrative court which is hired for the day by the Council, including the magistrates).

      Just a note as a point of Law.
      The Council cannot claim the Judge is not a party to the Action if he’s is directly on the Payroll of the Claimant.

      You should ask him who he represents? (from Marc Steven’s work)
      And if you can get a fair trail where there is a conflict of interest?

      The Judge will say no.
      Asked him who is paying him today? (he won’t reply to that)
      At that point he would have to recuse himself.

      That is not any court you should be going into.
      It is exactly the Fox ruling on the theft of eggs by his siblings. Who’s he gonna support?

      Best of luck, Never though I’d say that to a copper, I hate cops. (you know)
      Please give us an update as and when.

    12. Pingback: Anonymous

    13. John Reddington - Cartmell

      Here’s a little something which may be of interest to all the good souls fighting for justice :
      It really is time to stand up and be counted.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s