THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Was it realistic to expect the British to integrate with the Germans? That is what the Treaty of Rome demanded.
Was inviting a German Royal family to take the British throne a long term recipe for disaster? If so, is that disaster now upon us?
James McCabe wrote of the Assyrians, the ancestors of the German peoples , (History of the World), "...a fierce and treacherous race-they never kept faith when it was in their interest to break treaties". Harry Beckough wrote, (The Four Reichs), "Unprovoked war, without warning, i.e. ruthless treachery, lies and deceits are all common in German history from the outset." The German philosopher Nietzsche is reported to have said, "The German is an expert on secret paths to chaos."
In 1918 Germany was finally beaten in one of the most horrific wars in modern history. Twenty years later Germany had re-armed and was murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children in Spain in practice for her next great offensive which resulted in WW II, in which the German Army murdered raped and pillaged it's way across Europe. So widespread were the barbaric and merciless atrocities perpetrated by the German Armed Forces, even in today's enlightened times they are difficult to believe. These were not only the work of a lone extremist faction, they were too widespread, they betrayed a latent nature in the German people, one that can be traced back to Roman times. It took the combined efforts of three world powers to stop them, such was the will of the German nation, and only the will of an entire and united nation could have maintained such a power of resistance for so long.
At the expense of millions of human lives and untold and incalculable suffering, Germany was finally crushed and defeated militarily in 1945; but not so in spirit or aspiration. Within half a decade former Nazis were planning the next move towards the German domination of Europe. This manifested itself in 1952 with the innocent enough looking European Coal and Steel Community, soon to be followed by the European Economic Community, structured and entrenched in the Treaty of Rome, a rehash of the former Europaische Wirtschaftsgemienschaft 1942, the Nazi plan for the destruction of the nation states of Europe, to be replaced by a German superstate of regions based on the German Lander system. That the European treaty should relate to Rome is not without significance.
(Germany's connections with Rome go back a long way. In 774 AD. Charlemagne (Charles the Great 771-843) took it upon himself to protect Pope Leo III. Charlemagne then made every German a Roman Catholic, except the Saxons who refused, and himself Leader of the Holy Roman Empire.)
By 1964 discussions were being held in Parliament on the United Kingdom joining the European Community. This was at a time when by and large the people still trusted their elected representatives, including the Monarch, to uphold their political aspirations, and above all the law and the people's Constitution. Those pushing to join placed great emphasis on the totally false title, The Common Market, and they told the people that it amounted to no more than a mutual trading agreement. There was dissent, particularly in the Labour Party whose instincts led them to smell empire and imperialism. The vitality of the argument died when applications to join were rejected, chiefly at the insistence of French President Charles De Gaulle based on a chalk and cheese argument, the United Kingdom's system and principle of law being diametrically opposed to those of most of Europe. He may have considered the possibility that once joined the British people might soon discover the great deceit.
The initial impetus of the debate having died down, it became easier to stealthily proceed towards joining without undue resistance, although it was still present. However, despite all such resistance, and the fact that the British people were generally not in favour of the idea, regardless of the lies they had been told about the nature of the project, in 1972 we were joined. In 1972 the Queen gave Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972, which ratified our signing up to the Treaty of Rome, which the Queen had, earlier, commanded her plenipotentiaries Heath, Home and Rippon to sign in her name.
Although Parliament has long played down the fact, the Monarch is not only Sovereign Head of State she is also the official Governor of the nation and chief executive of her government, which is why she is obliged always to refer to the government as "my government". The Monarch is the people's representative in Parliament. Her job is to ensure that Parliament abides by the constraints of the Constitution and the law, and does nothing that is not in the people's interest and security. To this end all parliamentarians take an oath of allegiance to the Monarch, thus holding them in subordination to the people. At the time the Queen was crowned the British people vested in her enormous powers to ensure she could maintain and uphold her obligations according to her oath.
However, despite all of this the Queen gave her Royal Assent to a bill which could not possibly be lawful, as it sought to ratify the signing of a treaty that would denounce the supremacy of her office, the people's sovereignty, their Constitution and their laws, and deny them their birthright to be a free people of self governing and of self political determination. The Queen commanded her plenipotentiaries Heath, Home and Ripon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome on her behalf. Regardless of circumstances and considerations, these are the facts. Let us now explore and address some of the mystery surrounding what can only be described as, and what must be, the greatest betrayal of the British people in the entire history of the nation. How did it happen? How could it have happened? It was in total violation of the Constitution and the Queen's Coronation Oath. Let us go back to Nietzsche's statement, "The German is an expert on secret paths to chaos." So, where did the Germans enter into it?
There are always rumours, most of which are not worthy of note, but strong rumours relating to serious matters are always worth bearing in mind, for sometimes where there is smoke there could be fire. In the late 1930s it was rumoured that George VI had leanings towards the Third Reich and the land of his forebears. It should be remembered that he was not a strong man, he had been thrust into a position for which he was unprepared, and he was closely associated with the Masonic movement, being a Mason of the 33rd degree as was his brother Edward VIII, where he was exposed to the possibility of subversive influences. However, events dramatically changed his position. Never the less, there were members of the Royal family that remained under suspicion and scrutiny. Quite recently it was reported that certain documents resting in Paris relating to those times were stolen, allegedly at the behest of the Queen. Also recently reported, following the death of Edward Heath were allegations that as a student Heath had been on the payroll of the Germans as a spy. And so the plot thickens.
In his deceitful endeavours to take us into the so called Common Market, the EC, which is now called the European Union of the Regions, but more truthfully recognised as the Franco German Axis, Heath committed treason and perjury in the House of Commons, for which he was never impeached. In contrast Profumo was impeached for what amounted to little more than an indiscretion. For his efforts the Queen honoured Heath by making him a Knight of the Order of the Garter, and Germany awarded him the Charlamagne Prize. Remember Charlamagne and his connection to Rome? Following the Queen's signing up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the then Prime minister John Major boasted in the House of Commons that the Queen had officially become a citizen of the EU in her own Kingdom, and so subject to foreign law and diktat. As no one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time, Major, like Heath had committed perjury and treason in the House of Commons, and like Heath he has never been impeached, but was subsequently honoured by the Queen when she made him a Knight of the Order of Garter. It is worth remembering that following the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, Norris McWhirter and Rodney Atkinson laid charges of treason against the signatories Hurd and Maude, but the Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell refused permission to proceed on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest, not because he considered that there were no charges to answer.
Since the signing of the Treaty of Rome the Queen has sent her plenipotentiaries to sign up to all the subsequent European treaties, including the EU Constitutional Treaty. A letter from Buckingham Palace confirmed that the signatories to the EU Constitutional Treaty were Blair and Straw, and that they were acting as the Queen's plenipotentiaries. Add to this the Queen's now legendary pro-EU Paris speech, together with her Christmas broadcast of 2004, all might possibly explain the Queen's negative response to the million or so, and possibly more, letters and petitions sent to her by the British people begging her to stand by her Coronation Oath.
It cannot be over looked, that when the Queen visited the Pope, she wore black and the veil, acknowledging that she was a heretic in the eyes of the Pope. The Queen, having so acknowledged her recognition of her heresy, demonstrated her belief in the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Had the Queen still been Sovereign, she could have made no such gesture, as she would have been betraying her Coronation Oath and position as Supreme Governor of the Protestant Church of England. In addition by demonstrating such subordination to the Roman Church she would automatically break the 37th Article of Religion of the Church of England which as Supreme Governor of that Church she cannot do without bringing all of those Articles into disrepute and forfeiting the allegiance of the British people. (ref. The Declaration of Rights 1688, and the abdication of James II).
At the time of the Queen's coronation the people placed the military power of the state under the Queen's jurisdiction to ensure that it could not be used by a despotic Parliament as a punitive force against the people. Her Majesty's Armed forces are further constrained by their oath of allegiance to the Crown as representing the people which limits them to do no more than defend the Monarch her heirs and successors from her enemies. Only the Monarch has the lawful power to commit her armed forces to war, and only within the limitation of their oath of allegiance. The Prime Minister can only commit Her Majesty's Armed Forces to war if the nation is actually under attack, and only then if the Monarch is in no position so to do.
Recently Parliament committed Her Majesty's Armed Forces to engage in a war with Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq had made no declaration of war against this country, nor had Iraq engaged in any act of aggression against the Queen or this nation. It has been claimed that Parliament had committed Her Majesty's Armed Forces to war by exercising Royal prerogative powers, yet there is no Act, bill, law or statutory instrument which permits Parliament to exercise such powers.
It is claimed however that Parliament exercises Royal prerogative powers by convention, despite the fact that convention has no force in law what so ever. (Jowitt). Sir Edward Coke, author of the Petition of Rights 1628, wrote of the Royal prerogative powers, which were vested in the Queen by the people at the time of her coronation: ".... part of the person of the sovereign, and cannot be taken away even by an Act of Parliament." ( Jowitt ). The Royal prerogative powers therefore can according to law only be exercised at the personal discretion of the Monarch according to her conscience. Nor does the Monarch have the lawful right to lend, relinquish or bequeath those powers to Parliament. Only in the absence of a Monarch could Parliament usurp Royal prerogative powers, and by so doing exceed its authority without fear of lawful redress.
The loyal and trusting nature of the British people has for a long time led many to believe that the Queen must have been deceived by her ministers, or that she was ignorant of law, the Constitution and the facts. That she had been led to believe that she was obliged to obey the advice of her subordinate ministers. That if she did not agree with Parliament she would be seen as opposing the democratic process. Many people even suggested that the Queen was being blackmailed. All very generous, but all conjecture. On such an important and essential issue one is obliged to look at hard factual evidence.
As Princess Elizabeth and heir to the throne, the Queen was thoroughly educated on the Constitution and affairs of state by Sir Henry Martin, knowledge of which were essential to her future role as custodian of the Constitution and our Sovereignty. The Queen would have had a full understanding of the Act of Supremacy 1559, her Oath of Accession, her Declaration of Sovereignty and her Coronation Oath and their implications for her conduct as our Sovereign Queen. She cannot profess ignorance of those implications to excuse her conduct.
Act of Supremacy 1559.
"...all usurped and foreign power and authority...may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm...no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate...shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege...within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm for ever."
The Queen is known to read everything she is required to sign.There can be little doubt that she fully understood the intention of the Treaty of Rome, formulated by former Nazis. At that time the Attorney General Lord Kilmuir warned Heath in an open letter of the constitutional consequences of signing up to the Treaty of Rome. As a Privy Councillor it would have been his sworn duty and obligation to also advise the Queen. Despite the Act of Supremacy and all constitutional constraints, the Queen decided to sign up to the Treaty of Rome, thus surrendering the supremacy of her office, and so breaching her Coronation Oath to her people, and breaking her contract with them. There is no evidence to support or even suggest that she was persuaded by her ministers to so act. Had she been so persuaded, or been deceived in her grant by her ministers, or been given 'evil advice', those responsible would have been deemed subject to the laws of treason, it would then have been the Queen's duty to effect a remedy. Like the actions of Heath and Major, no one has ever been charged or retributions sought. It seems therefore reasonable to conclude that the Queen acted of her own free will according to her own resolve, and that she has never gone back on her resolve, as demonstrated by her willingness to sign up to the subsequent European treaties. Had her ministers signed up to the treaties without the express consent of the Queen, they would have made themselves subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848 It would then have been the duty of the Lord Chancellor, as keeper of the Queen's conscience, to bring charges against them. No such charges have been laid.
Of particular interest and significance is the fact that some twenty five years ago the treason laws were dropped from the syllabuses of our major law colleges. Clearly there is no need for treason laws to protect a Sovereign who is no longer sovereign. Some treason laws were recently repealed, but the principle treason laws, in particular the Treason Act 1351 and the Treason Felony Act 1848 could not be repealed for they are entrenched constitutional statutes.
Over the past few years evidence of treason has been laid before our police forces. In each case the chief constable of those constabularies has refused to act. It would seem they have been led to believe that treason, despite it being the head of all crime, is no longer a crime or felony. By not acting on the evidence submitted, those police officers placed themselves subject to charges of misprision of treason, but when this was brought to their notice they dismissed it. This could also explain why no charges of treason have been brought against the British born terrorists.
During the time of our association with the European Union, British people have sought redress constitutionally, legally and politically. All such attempts have been rejected by the courts and the establishment. Hundreds of thousands of letters and petitions have been sent to the Queen, which have either been ignored, or acknowledged with ambiguous claims that the Queen is obliged to take the advice of her ministers, implying that she is obliged to bow to the dictate of her subordinates, be that dictate lawful or unlawful. Thus the truth that the office of the Monarch as Sovereign Head of State is denied and denounced by the Queen's own office.
The people have always been led to believe that taking the nation into the European Community was all the doing of Edward Heath, the then Prime Minister. Heath must have known that what he was doing was a deceit, and what he was saying were lies, in fact many years later he publicly confessed to it. He must also have known that he was acting treasonously. And he must also have known that his claims that we could always withdraw simply by repealing the European Community Act 1972 was also a lie. According to the Act of Supremacy 1559 the ECA 72 could never be lawful, it must be ultra vires, and therefore could not be repealed, only struck from the record. And he must have known that those engaged in structuring such an Act would be subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848. It is difficult to believe that Heath would have so acted had he not been confident that he had the protection of a higher authority.
No consent was ever sought from the British people to surrender the supremacy of their sovereignty, their laws and Constitution. It was not sought because the people could have given no such consent, all these things being not in their gift, for they are the birthright of generations yet to come. Never the less, all the available evidence suggests that Queen Elizabeth II did by her own free will surrender these things which were not hers to give away, and by so doing placed the British people under the oppression of a foreign un-elected and unaccountable German dominated political power.
To accept the dictate of EU law is to accept and acknowledge that in 1972 the supremacy of the Crown as representing the sovereignty of the British people was abandoned to the supremacy of European Community. If this were so, it would mean that as Parliament draws its legitimacy from the Crown, from 1972 on Parliament would have had no legitimacy in law, making it an unlawful assembly. It would also mean that the office of the Monarch ceased to exist, and that all enlistments and commissions in Her Majesty's Armed Forces since that time would have no legitimacy. And it would mean that since 1972 all the pomp and pageantry of state such as the state opening of Parliament has been nothing more than a charade. All of these aspects and considerations would have been known to the Queen at the time of her 1972 decision, whether that decision was made of her own free will or otherwise. By her actions and non actions the Queen has allowed Parliament to render itself subordinate to an external foreign political power, thus making itself an unlawful assembly according to our laws and Constitution.
If all this be true, one must ponder on how a betrayal and deceit of such magnitude has not been exposed or questioned. The answer it seems can be found in two simple words: incredulity and deference. Incredulity, because for the masses it is almost inconceivable to comprehend, and deference, because the establishment has always been maintained and controlled by deference; those in high places do not wish to lose them. There has been a conspiracy of silence at the highest level, supported by those who dismiss suggestions of conspiracy as being no more than theory. It is a fact however that the world has always been, is now and probably always will be, run and controlled by conspiracies. One has to acknowledge that in this instance there is without question a German dimension and agenda, and as shown here, the Germans are masters of the art of conspiracy.
If the British nation is not to become a subordinate province of regions in a German controlled European Reich, without the supremacy, freedoms and security of our own Constitution and laws, and the supremacy of our own Protestant Reformed Church as recognised by and upheld by our own laws, Queen Elizabeth II must be held to account and made answerable for the treasonous activities of her governments since 1972, and for her apparent disregard for her Coronation Oath to her people.
In summary. SAMUEL 10.24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.
Such is the nature of man that he has such a need. This was most apparent in the seventeenth century when the office of the monarch was temporally terminated, chaos, anarchy, civil unrest and civil war ensued.
In 1972 Queen Elizabeth II surrendered the supremacy of her office to the supremacy of the European Community. The office of the Monarch is supreme or it is nothing. Since that time therefore, despite the Queen acting as though her office was still in existence, even going through the ceremonies of state, all her official doings have been nothing but a charade. As was to be seen in the seventeenth century, since the nation became kingless in 1972, the nation has slipped into anarchy. Parliament has become a despotic lawless assembly, totally ignoring constitutional constraint and the peoples common law, imposing foreign law on the people, and wielding draconian legislation to uphold repressive taxation, based on a foreign system, and in the interest of a foreign regime. Our police forces have been removed from the community and directed towards the establishment of a state police force, in preparation for upholding state power, once the British principle of the state being the servant of the people, is replaced by the European system where the state is sovereign, and the people are but subjects of the state . Unlawful devolution has taken place, and the mass immigration of aliens encouraged. Law and order has broken down, the structure of community and social order has been seriously eroded, and the people are becoming defensively aggressive towards each other.
There can now be no.doubt, that until and unless the Monarchy is restored, the fabric of the nation will continue to disintegrate, and with it the peace, happiness and security of the British people.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBL.
Posts
