Image

Another Mouth on its Way for the Taxpayers to Feed!


About these ads

36 responses to “Another Mouth on its Way for the Taxpayers to Feed!

  1. Well yes. But there is only one of him/her. On the whole, at a minimum, British royalty is a pretty good PR machine (except sometimes) and might be worth their cost – or more. Even if they are individually expensive.

    I am a lot more concerned about the teeming millions of welfare cases (in various forms), many of which are recent immigrants, legal or illegal. This goes for almost all Western countries.

    Thor

  2. I’m no royalist, not by any means, but I suppose the cost of keeping them in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed, really does pale into insignificance compared with the cost of the UK’s lunatic Benefits system.

    My heart-felt concerns though, are firmly for our own sick and elderly. We have a government hell-bent on creating the world’s largest free, come and grab it, public cash distribution office. They’re so determined to set the UK up to be the leading beacon of care for the world, that they’ve totally lost sight of what it was all originally designed to do. There’s little doubt, in my mind and in many other peoples, that the would-be immigrants’ sign-post to follow if seeking to find free social and health benefits reads, ‘UK that Way’.

    Although never, ever, putting their real intentions to the public pre-election, the government’s insistance that we all adhere (by threat of being thrown in gaol should we refuse to obey the latest edict) to their political correct policies post-election, only serves to frustrate the public and makes both financial and social matters far worse.

    English pensioners both frail and those who just manage to get along, are having to suffer low pensions mostly because all who’ve landed here within the past 30 years or so, have been granted precisely the same amount. The charge of illegal racial discrimination would immediately arise should our UK- born pensioners be paid more or receive a larger increase. Also, because some people still believe the UK to be the parsonage of the world, favouring our own poor over another nations’ poor, would never do. Those in power, know of course that their own pensions are generous to a fault. A nice situation to be in then when claiming the pot from which pensions come is running on empty. Of course it’s not the pot that’s empty, it’s the spout the fills it that’s been diverted elsewhere.

    So, because there are so many immigrants now claiming pensions and/or other benefits, our own pensioners continue to be sold short. Not knowing the statistics (not knowing if there are any statistics) I can’t claim that statement doesn’t include that which is the norm in other similar sized countries. But it is easy to find out – just look out for governments over their heads in debt.

    So not only does immigration cost the tax-payer far more than he knows, it also cheats our own people out of their already paid-for but badly invested pension schemes (not invested at all actually – just used to pay older people’s pensions. An ponzi scheme in fact).

    With regard to the sprog soon to be clutching at silver spoons – no need to worry about him or her, or them. Might be a different story though should the mice turn… and don’t count it out. UK PLC is in very deep doo both financially and socially. The future lies in the hands of our clever and highly esteemed politicians who’ve chosen to place their trust in the hands of banksters. Yes, really, it’s that bad!

    How lucky does one have to be to have a rampaging cancer for 30 years and not become seriously ill?

  3. I’m afraid I don’t have time to comment, I am too busy rejoicing.

  4. O.K.

    Abolish the Civil List (no more taxpayers money for them) – and return the Royal Estates to the Royal Family. The profit from the Royal Estates presently goes to George Osbourne – who wastes it on the UN, IMF, EU, and so on.

    The last time I checked, if the Civil List was abolished but the Royal Estates returned, that would mean that the income of the Winsors would increase by some 300%.

    So it would be a double celebration.

    Unless it is a triple celebration – if the lady gives birth to twins.

  5. No. These two poor little people, these royals, are blameless pawns in the evil game of modern-tyranny-management. They probably even love each other. Let’s keep a sense of perspective here.

    The more wicked fellas are the ones who give the Royal Family a mere £8 million a year, tax it (they do now, on the way in) and then pretend to us that such a Head Of State is “expensive”. In the same breath, the government announces today that it’s giving £2 billion to Colombian cattle farmers, so they emit less CO2. Life truly imitates art. You couldn’t make it up.

    • Yup. A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking real money. (Some US politician).

  6. I’m not sure If I’m the one holding the towel or you are Thor but we’re in the same corner with this one. You’re right on, pretty soon we’ll be talking real money. What we really need right now is a wicked sense of humour.

    I’m sure you could make it up David but you’d risk being locked up if you did. We certainly do live in frightening times.

  7. How can a land without sovereignty have a sovereign?

  8. Government spending is higher this year than it was last year (and it was insanely high last year) and it will be higher next year than it is this year.

    The political elite (of all the major political parties) are filled with Keynesian and Social Justice nonsense at school and university (and via the media).

    And the people? They rarely vote on anything directly – they vote for someone to “do something” and they do not bother their heads of what, specifically, that “something” turns out to be. They have no idea of the level of government spending in any major department or in total, or the level of tax rates on “the rich”. Nor is there any reason why should they know these things – after all they have no direct say in such matters.

    Perhaps the ordinary people would be useless – but even in California (always held up as the ultimate example of the utter worth-less-ness of the judgement of ordinary people) the record of the “common people” is actually less bad than the State Legislature and Governor (oddly enough the same individual person who made the most absurd choices in California’s past, such as the unionisation of government workers, is again Governor – Governor Moonbeam himself, Jerry Brown). Most of the truly insane increases in spending and taxing (it is often forgotten that Califorina is actually an ultra high tax State) come from the professional political class – not from the ordinary voters (bad though most of those ordinary voters are). In other States people normally (when they get a chance) do not just vote against higher taxation – they also, mostly, vote against higher spending.

    Still back to Ian’s point.

    Remember Sovereignity was not lost all at once.

    First it was the EEC – with a British veto on everything.

    Then it was the Single European Act – but that was just going to cover “single market issues” just internal free trade.

    Then it was……

    Stage by stage, freedom was lost.

    There never was a Bill from Parliament presented to the Queen titled “The Enslavement of the British People Act”.

    Still if one does want the monarch to have a direct role in government – activelly vetoing things they regard to be fundementally evil……

    And if one wants a nation that proves that one does not have to be part of the E.U.

    Well there is a little country in the mountains – and they even have the same tune as the national anthem as us…….

    Jacobites are said to be interested….

    More importantly – it is one of the few places where the ruler is actually sincerly interested in preventing the Welfare State totally bankrupting the land, both financially and culturally.

    Those of us who have long known the objective of the “European Project” assume that people such as the Queen “must know – must have always known”.

    However, people “inside the bubble” may sometimes know less (yes less) than some people outside it.

  9. I felt the original comment was most ungracious. William and Kate are a charming couple, unlike that miserable old bugger waiting in the wings for his mother to die so he can be king. I’ve always reckoned he will pre-decease her anyway.
    As far as finances are concerned, the Royal Family are undoubtedly net contributors to the nation’s finances. They have been reduced to little more than a tourist attraction, since Elizabeth has broken her vows so often and so enthusiastically, but a profitable one nonetheless.

    • All told, I agree with Hugo. I do hope EIIR lives long enough for there to be no CIIIR. She’s done nothing about her oath to uphold our birthright. She might at least do us one favour before she croaks.

  10. paul marks says “There never was a Bill from Parliament presented to the Queen titled “The Enslavement of the British People Act”.
    and “Those of us who have long known the objective of the “European Project” assume that people such as the Queen “must know – must have always known”.
    well, the 1972 european communities act should have rung warning bells with hmq. it breached either (or both) magna carta and the 1689 bill of rights by ceding soveregnty to a ‘foreign prince, prelate or potentate’ or whatever the phrase is. by the time we get to lisbon it must have been blindingly obvious to hmq that she was breaking her coronation oath and undermining our constitution. the queen is custodian of our constitution or she is nothing. it is her job to know about these things. i have no hesitation at all in saying she has betrayed her subjects. she could have stopped all this at any time yet she enthusiastically embraced treaty after treaty. for some reason people seem to think she is doing a marvellous job and refuse to hear any criticism of her. her motives in desiring a politically united europe may well be noble, having seen her european cousins at each others’ throats during the last century, but a betrayal it is none the less. hmq is now an eu citizen just like the rest of us, and has placed herself under eu law, so she can no longer be described as ‘sovereign’. (sorry about lack of capitals – my keyboard is on the fritz!)

  11. Magna Carta hasn’t had any legal force for centuries. Except that one clause about the right for a freeman to worry a chicken on a thursday within the walls of London,and the right to throw herring at Scotsmen.

    We have a later takes precedent system, not a highest takes precedent system (as the USA has).The Parliament can pass any law it likes without Constitutional restraint and, by jingo, that is precisely what it has done.

    • “We have a later takes precedent system, not a highest takes precedent system (as the USA has).The Parliament can pass any law it likes without Constitutional restraint and, by jingo, that is precisely what it has done.”

      Ian, you are no longer entirely correct. We are moving back to a more 17th century position. Forget all the guff about the European Union – see these paragraphs from the judgment in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC:

      “In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental…. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional” statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the [Human Rights Act 1998], the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The [European Communities Act] clearly belongs in this family…. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual not imputed, constructive or presumed intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. “This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.”

      This is not a complete repudiation of the more recent doctrine, of latest comes first. However, it does mean that the politicians can no longer hide something utterly gross in the schedule to a Local Highway Bill, and then wait for someone to spring the trap. Before they can enslave us any further, the scum have to look us in the face and confess their intention.

      And this is unlikely to be the last word in the matter. Ever since the Great War, the lawyers have been getting increasingly panicky about the implications of absolute legislative sovereignty in a system no longer dominated by hereditary landlords. They have now decided to hit back, and to keep hitting back. Parliamentary sovereignty is a doctrine of the common law, and has now been limited under the common law. I remember how grateful the politicians were when the Judges pulled this trick – entirely of their own motion, without a word from counsel – to get them out of trouble. Without this, it would have been necessary to admit either that the key parts of the ECA had been impliedly repealed in 1985, or that the ECA was now supreme law in itself. But the Judges had waited for the right moment, when they were unlikely to be slapped back into place. There have been further limiting judgments since. Parliament is no longer sovereign, except in a theoretical and ultimate sense. Its Acts can be called in question and struck down by the courts.

  12. Quit so Ian. Indeed I used to know the person in the Home Office who replied to these “Magna Carta” and “Bill of Rights” letters. He was (is?) a nice man – he worked hard (in another job in the Home Office) to prevent black power weapons being banned under the general “gun control” regulations.

    However, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not worth the ink they were written with – that debate was lost with Blackstone. Blackstone liked both of them – but held that “of course” any Act of Parliament trumped both of them.

    The American Founding Fathers were furious – Jefferson replied with icy contempt. Someone like John Adams would have strangled Blackstone on sight (had they ever met – which I do not belive they did), but I do not think there was any serious opposition on this island.

    So there you go – debate stil-born back in the 1700s (at least among the poltical elite).

    Although there was a network of Constitutional Clubs (and a massive British National Rifle Association) right up to the First World War.

    What “Constitution” they thought they were defending I do not know – as the utilitarians (of all parties) who ran things certainly did believe in any real Consitution. They believed that Parliament could do what it liked – that was there “constitution”,

  13. As for the Queen breaking her oath.

    The Queen acts on the “advice” of her ministers (much in the way a business owner acted under the “advice” of the Richardsons or the Kray twins – accept the threat, do as we say or else, does not even have to be formally stated as it is accepted in the “Conventions”).

    The battle of Nasby (only a few milies from here) was lost.

    It was not “blindingly obvious” to most people in the House of Commons that the Bill of 1972 was anything deeply evil (although it was, actually, deeply evil).

    Ditto the following Bills-Acts.

    Not a single King, Queen or GrandDuke in Europe vetoed any of this stuff – or spoke against it.

    Well the last point is not correct – the Princes of a little mountain place up in the Alps have denounced all this stuff (at various times). They seem to be building “Galt’s Gulch” up there (if only they had the defence screen to make them invisible).

    But apart from them?

  14. yes i accept ian b that ‘later takes precedent’, but magna carta pre-dates parliament, it is not an act of parliament and is binding ‘in perpetuity’ or words to that effect. paul marks you’ve left me behind with the ‘debate was lost with blackstone’ i’m afraid – i must concede my ignorance here. there was much debate in the ‘metric martyrs’ case under justice laws (that was the name of the judge, as would be clear if i had capital letters!) about whether there was such a thing as ‘consitutional law’ and whether that was superior to other laws. i never fully understood the point at the time and have no idea how, or whether, it was resolved. i do know poor old steve thoburn dropped dead with a heart attack due to the stress of it all. not that the european commission were going to lose any sleep over that. it has always been my view that if we had a codified constituion like the u.s., the 1972 european communities act would have been declared unconstitutional and the whole thing would have been halted in its tracks. as it is, we have to rely on the queen to protect us, and she has failed to do so. in fact she is siding with the enemy, not surprising in view of her german ancestry. i don’t mean that as a snide anti-german remark, merely to explain her possible enthusiasm for a politicaly united europe.

  15. Should I choose to throw the chicken and worry the herring, let’s say on a Friday, late morning, would I still be covered? I get into London of a Friday and often partake of herring. Does it mention if the Scots fellow should be attired in kilt and sporran, or is accent sufficient for purpose in this regard?

    Wish I’d have known about this earlier.

  16. Of course the Americans had their own Blackstone a century ago – the Dean of the Harvard Law School (and the rest of the gang).

    Oddly enough in some of the States the Judges have not gone Progressive.

    Texas is an obvious example – the judges there sometimes act as if the words of the Texas Constitution of 1876 limited what the government can spend money upon (and so on).

    How astonishingly “uneducated” these Texas State judges must be.

    By the way the first couple of pages of the Texas Constitution are well worth reading – they say much the same things as the American Constitution, but they say it better, less wiggle room and poor drafting.

    Yes I have committed the blasphemy of saying the United States Constitution is not perfecly drafted (it was a very hot summer in Philly and they were in a hurry).

    Even the Bill of Rights (composed afterwards) is obviously a bit of a mess.”How dare you say that Paul!”.

    Consider the ORDER – Consider it carefully…..

    The “Ninth” Amendment was supposed to be the First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment was supposed to be the Second Amendment.

    James Madison messed up the order.

    Also there is that love of preambles……

    Any lawyer (worth paying) will tell you – never put in preambles to substative clauses.

    Because, if you do, the debate (legal debate) will migrate to the preamble.

    Example – the preamble to the Second Amendment. “Oh well militia means….” The substantive principle has got bugger all to do with a miltia – but because it is mentioned……

    More exterme example – the preamble in Article One, Section Eight.

    A nice list of spending powers (fairly well drafted) – but it starts of with “common defence and general welfare” in the preamble,

    So the collectivists come along and say “well if this spending is for the general welfare…….”.

    Do not put in preambles.

    Do not explain why you are doing something (or that, your explination, is what the legal argument will be about).

    Just do it.

    “But Britain Paul……”

    Some Redneck in Alabama would (at a pinch) understand the language of the Constitution of Alabama – and, most likely, would agree with most of the document (it is very long).

    But a British person with the our British Bill of Rights?

    “Where is the right to the NHS?” Might be what they said (if they understood the document at all).

    I would like think that I am wrong in thinking that – but I do not believe I am.

  17. I have heard of this “constitutonal Act” stuff Sean – indeed the specific case you mention.

    However, please note which Act the buggers have chosen to be “constitutional” in this case – the European Communities Act. As you quite rightly say, under the rules, the later Act of Parliament should have trumped the previous European Communities Act – so the bleeping judges just changed the rules (as they tend to do – to get the result they want).

    That is what is wrong with the Common Law (or at least what it has become) – a lot of judges doing what they like, and changing the rules whenever they feel like it.

    “But they could bring back Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights” – perhaps they could, but they will not.

    The judges are not elected, there is no way that the public can influence them. Not that elections have much effect – because they depend on most people knowing and careing, really careing and knowing.

    If the judges were really the arch reactionaries of leftist legend this might not matter. But a lot of judges are not like that at all.

    I do not want clever judges (composing the sort of high sounding language about the “maturity of the common law”) I want honest judges.

    An honest judge would be someone who said (for example) “I would like the law to be ……., but that is not the law – the law is the opposite of that”

    Someone who started with the law – and applied the law to the case.

    Instead of starting with the case – deciding what result they want, and then working backwards to the law.

  18. sean, i read the laws judgement when it came out but didn’t really get the point when the metric martyrs were claiming it as a ‘victory’. but now when you write the same words i understand it. how do you figure that? must be your way with words. the point is that if the 1972 eca is ‘constitutional law’ it can indeed be expressly repealed & we are thus free from the eu. unfortunately i am quite certain that if we were ever to do this, the ecj would simply say “ok, you can repeal the eca, but in doing so you are repudiating a treaty (rome) which no longer exists”. it has been supplanted by lisbon (i know lisbon is technically an amending treaty but that’s not how they will see it). so the ecj will not recognise our repudiation of rome and we will not recognise the ecj’s repudaition of our repudiation. then the fun will begin.
    paul, i thought i knew a lot about the u.s. constitution till i read your articles. i still regard it as a one of man’s greatest political achievements, at least until lincoln came along and trashed it. you mention the alabama constitution – i have read that alabama’s is the longest constitution in the world – four thousand-odd words i think – made deliberately impenetrable so they could keep the niggers down without saying so expressly, or at least without it being generally understood!

  19. Being a lawyer himself and going on to eventually become the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke MP, surely will, or should, have been aware of this sort of thing happening – perhaps even taking part himself in something fundamentally undemocratic because it’s a legal slight of hand, or the joining in with a conspiracy to mislead from a position of trust.

    No matter which, surely he and his chums were/are doing little more than simply putting two fingers up to the general public? It’s a little hard to believe because it goes against the very principal of good, open and honest governance; the very things he claims to be the reasons he decided to turn politician.

    I’ve been involved with litigation from time to time but this is a very new pathway for me to be treading, so please enlighten me someone if I’m missing something important. This is chicanery isn’t it?

  20. John, the Magna Carta clause only applies within London’s City walls, so is not applicable in London in general, for instance the West End or Hammersmith, etc. It was established in the legal case McTavish vs. The RIght Honourable Sir Norman de Yoke that it is sufficient that the herringee appear to a reasonable man to have the appearance of being a Scotsman, either by drunkenly rambling in an unknown tongue, or by being insufferably dour.

  21. How about abolish the Civil List and keep the revenue from the Royal Estates? The Royal Estates are only “theirs” if they keep the Coronation Oath. It was a specific compact in 1689 – that they had to uphold th constitution and then estates that were not theirs would be handed over to them.

    The Queen has violated the Coronation Oath repeatedly – why should she have any access to the Crown Estates? I say prepare the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall for IPOs – and ask for a public explanation from the palace of the thieving and embezzlement of the royal estates on a fall prospectus.

    They simply cannot be allowed to walk off with someone else’s inheritance (the estates of the Stuart kings) while not upholding the Coronation Oath. I understand that to be theft, plain and simple.

  22. false prospectus

  23. At the risk of being a contrarian, I can’t actually see anything in Mrs Queen’s Coronation Oath that she has actually violated.

  24. Ian B – to govern us ACCORDING TO OUR LAWS AND CUSTOMS – not those given to us by Brussels.

    By the way, I just listened to the hoax call to the hospital at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9724043/Kate-Middleton-pregnant-hospital-security-blunder-as-Kates-nurse-falls-for-hoax-call.html – so OBVIOUSLY A HOAX it is amazing the hospital thought it was the Queen!

  25. ” Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?”

    All totally violated by the female priests and the abolition of the BCP etc

  26. and by giving the country over to the muslims.

  27. in 2003 i was driving a bus round and round westminster abbey while hmq was inside re-taking her coronation vows to mark her fiftieth anniversary. on the side of the bus were emblazoned the words “your majesty, remember your coronation vows – save us from the eu constitution”. we got ourselves on page 2 of the ‘sun’ newspaper, opposite the delightful nicola (23) from croydon.

  28. Hugo – the treaty we know as the E.U. Constitution was presented as yet another moderate step. That is how the Queen’s ministers would present it to her. And the judges would say the same – after all (as Sean Gabb pointed out) the judges change the rules to suit whatever outcome to a case they want. And they justify themselves by a lot of high sounding waffle about the “common law in its maturity” (translation – “bend over and touch your toes – because we are about to take you up the backside”)

    The Queen can only act in accordance with the instructions of her minister and the judges (and other scumbags). The battle of Nasby was lost – and so was 1688. The Queen is basically “on top” in the same way the fairy on the top of the Christmas Tree is “on top” – the Queen is in charge of nothing (just like the fairy, or the star, on the top of the Christmas Tree).

    Mr Webb – you seem to have forgotten the point of 1688. It was that the King or Queen were not free to act (not that they were free to act) – no more religious toleration from King James II, only from Parliament (if they felt like it).

    Remember King Billy? He made a treaty with Catholics in Ireland to respect their private property rights.

    Parliament decided to wipe their backsides with that treaty.

    King Billy had given his word – did not matter.

    His own bodyguard (the Blue Guard) were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic – did not matter.

    All that mattered was what Parliament said mattered.

    Still true.

    I wish it was not true.

    I wish this country was more like Liechtenstein. But it is not – and there is no point pretending that it is.

    The Crown lost their last real tool in 1832 (when the King lost that 50 seats in the House of Commons he had some influence in the elections of).

    As for Constitutions…..

    How about the constitutional independence of the Republic of Ireland?

    What happened to that?

    What was all the killing (on all sides) for?

    Brussels is not a Irish city (and more than it is a British one) – yet that is where Irish laws are really decided.

    Frankfurt is not an Irish city – yet that is where what is money in Ireland is decided.

    British independence is a load of useless people (including me) grumbleing into their tea.

    And Irish independnce is a lot of (equally useless) people singing songs – songs that do not mean anything anymore.

    It is not the Queen of the United Kingdom who is at fault – it is everyone who is at fault.

    We have all let things go.

    And most Americans (for all their boasting) are no different.

    They have just signed their own death warrent as a nation – although most of them are too thick to understand it yet.

    Most of their Constitution was ripped up long ago – in spite of the fact that the government people sware sacred oaths (yes oaths) to uphold it.

    But now they have an actual enemy sitting in the Whitehouse – someone who was taught to hate the United States of America at his mother’s knee (literally).

    And the Mickey Mouse club population do not even know it.

    Bill Ayers (someone that the President of the Republic of Ireland might like by the way) summed it up best.

    “Guilty as Hell – but free as bird, you have to love America…” (he said that after he walked from his terrorism trial).

    But Comrade Bill laughed – that was his problem, he could not keep a straight face and talk with a gentle voice to those he intended to murder.

    That Comrade Barack can do – good facial expression, kind words, gentle tone….. that is why Comrade Bill showed him off when they lived in Hyde Park. This is a man who could put on a good show – and fool the capitalist morons…..

    Bascially anyone who has kissed the B. Stone can fool most voters.

    Perhaps my grandfather should have gone into politics.

    After all he actually did kill the stone – twisted round with someone holding his feet.

    Oaths – sacred principles?

    Nobody cares about them – not in our utiltiarian world.

  29. sadly i have to agree with you about america. but at least they do something about it instead of just grumbling like us brits.
    as for the queen being the ‘fairy on top of the tree’ and not being able to defy her ministers, i don’t think that is true. nothing becomes law without her assent. her ministers cannot ‘advise’ hmq to violate her solemn oaths. ok, it would provoke a constitutional crisis, but that is what we have anyway.
    her difficulty is that we keep voting for these pro-eu rascals, and this must make it difficult for her to reject the treaties.
    it is indeed ‘we the people’ who are ultimately to blame. we are too apathetic to do anything about it. once maude had signed maastricht i took the only logical course of action and stood against him at the next election, and the two subsequent ones. for some reason which i completely fail to understand, the voters of horsham always vote tory (even thought they seem to hate maude). they always have and they always will. if this was their considered opinion i could respect it, but it is just unthinking tribal loyalty – they will vote for anything or anyone as long as it sports a blue rosette. i just don’t get it i’m afraid. anyway my conscience is clear.

  30. Will Wolverhampton

    THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and
    calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and
    two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into
    allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir – peremptorily
    Thomas – Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and
    the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh
    and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what
    it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple
    arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief
    into the head of George Gradgrind, or Augustus Gradgrind, or John
    Gradgrind, or Joseph Gradgrind (all supposititious, non-existent
    persons), but into the head of Thomas Gradgrind – no, sir!

    http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/786/pg786.txt

  31. I see no evidence that most Americans are doing anything – apart from asking for more free stuff. Whether it is a wealthy banker or a street gang member – they want more free stuff. To be paid for (in the end) by the Federal Reserve creating more money – from nothing. This is what they have been taught to ask for – and it is not going to turn out well.

    As for American independence – the President of the United States is a man with a lifelong hatred of the United States. Why does it shock people when I say that? After all the universities are under the control of people who hate the West (P.C. “Crtical Theory” types) , the schools are also (thanks to “teacher training”) and so is the media. Including the entertainment media – “turn to Fox” (and see the latest down-with-the-rich propaganda on “The Simpsons” written by people who attended Prof Sandel’s indoctrination classes at Harvard). Sometimes the connnection is direct (such as “The Simpsons” and Harvard) sometimes (as with the Hollywood types who have a pretty face and just say whatever they are told to say) it is a general general atmosphere.

    Does anyone really believe that Barack Obama is going to stand against international treaties destroying American indepenence? If the Senate does not agree the stuff will be de facto imposed by Executive Orders.

    And why should someone like him not be President? After all the cultural institutions came under the control of people like him decades ago.

    Sacred Oaths?

    We live in a age where unitilarian philosophy “the greatest good of the greatest number” trumps any oath (any promise, any other principle).

    And who decides what is for “the greatest good of the greatest number”? The government does of course.

    And the Queen follows the advice of her ministers. “Defy them”? On what basis?

    The liberty of the subjects?

    Who says they want freedom? The evidence is that they want free stuff (not freedom). Of course they have been “educated” to want free stuff – actually it is astonishing that so many people are still interested in such things as national independence.

    We may not do anything – but we do grumble.

    If the picture of humanity painted by determinist (or semideterminist) philosophy (in such books as “Freakonomics”, “Nudge” and “Thinking; Fast and Slow”) we would all be shounting the praises of the European Union, Unted Nations and on and on….

    After all we are (according to the elite – the people who write such books and push them) “Homer Simpsons” (The Simpsons again – Harvard propaganda packaged to brainwash the “ignorant masses”) who must be controlled by a wise and noble international elite – for our own good (our own “happiness”).

    If we “Homer Simpsons” are not controlled by a wise and noble international elite (very Agenda 21) we will be manipulated by “greedy big business” (or something).

    After all humans are not really beings – we do not have agency. We are not really people – we are “Homer Simpsons”, we do not make real choices – we are just under the “illusion” that we do.

    So freedom is not even an option (the elite have “proved” this) – it is just a matter of who manipulates us (not whether we are manipulated) . For our “happiness” we must be manipulated by a wise and noble international elite.

    Roll on Agenda 21 (or whatever).

    At least till this wise and noble elite hit something that even their power can deal with.

    Objective reality.

    Their economics will fail – it is that simple, and that brutal.

    There were will be terrible suffering as their system collapses – but collapse it will.

    However, the elite most likely will not suffer.

    They will shake their heads sadly – and tut-tut about how the people “failed” them.

    Next time it will work – the utopia of happy people (controlled by them) will be achieved.

    Or the next time, or the next time…..

  32. I really do feel obligated to say that while it is admirable that a man from Kettering is so learned in matters American, it is simply unforgivable that he can’t spell “Naseby”.

    I have this romantic image of standing there in the Monarchist lines, peering through the fog at the indistinct shades of the bestial Parliamentarians, and somebody saying, “Where’s Paul? He said he was coming.” and the reply, “He got lost, looking for Nasby”.

    :o)

    Interesting Civil War fact of the day: after the battle, the victorious Puritan thugs butchered around 100 women who were Monarchist camp followers, apparently for not being willing to spread their thighs.

    These are the type of people now running England.

  33. You have a point Ian – especially as I have been to the place many times. Of course I even mess up my own name (I have been known to type “Pal” or even “al” – for Paul). It can get confusing – even for me.

    However, the women were killed for the crime of being Irish. Actually many of them were Welsh (and Welsh people regularly came to Northampton driving cattle and sheep – so it is hard to believe it was an honest mistake) – but, I suppose, being Welsh was considered close enough to being Irish to be worthy of death.

    Still it is claimed that some women were holding children for ransom – hard to prove now.