Alternative Media
The Dissolving Of The British Parliament 2nd September 2013 Tags: The Dissolving Of The British Parliament 2nd September 2013

Oliver Cromwell

WALK AGAINST CORRUPTION 2013

Over the past six weeks I along with my team have walked 300 miles across the country in protest of corruption. We met many ordinary people who are sick to the back teeth of the corruption on a national and local level. For me, this gave me a unique insight into how middle England thinks and as we continue to lose more and more of our rights it begs the question, what can be done to end this tyranny?

On the 20th April 1653 Oliver Cromwell gave a speech to the House of Commons and backed by just forty Musketeers he dissolved parliament by force. The problems in society are surprisingly similar between Cromwell’s time and ours. A coalition government which was not elected by the people with corruption running rife throughout parliament and society which was described as a den of thieves and prostitutes. Oliver Cromwell is seen today by many as hero and some a villain but whatever you personally think of him, its clear that as a righteous man he felt that something had to be done to end the corruption pervading his society.

Sadly today, not much has changed. We have paedophile politicians who are above the law, an out of control financial system which is intent on creating an under class of debt slaves, corruption in the Police and justice system whereby ordinary people receive no justice whatsoever, secret family courts where parents are threatened with imprisonment if they dare to speak out about what has happened to them when Social Services kidnap their children, a media which is so controlled that they fail to report on any serious issues which go against our corrupt western regime.

A group of elite bankers and corporations intent on owning everything and everyone in the world under what they call a “New World Order” which is a one world authoritarian government, which will bring an end to sovereign nations. The New World Order of course simply is a new packaging for “Nazi World Order” as many commentators believe.

In Britain we already live in a communist super state in which decisions are made in Brussels. These decisions affect the lives of hard working people in the country who can barely afford to live, whilst politicians from all major parties vote to give themselves pay raises whilst failing to tackle real issues which affect ordinary people. We have a military industrial complex which is constantly at war, blaming other nations for the way they decide to live and then offering solutions which financially benefit favoured global corporations and of course themselves. Under our present regime, our enemies, if we really actually have any, have flourished being armed by Western governments to cause mayhem, death and destruction all over the planet.

The European Union gives immunity from prosecution to all politicians, their assistances, business partners and friends. Of course our current Prime Minister David Cameron can veto these rules and only seems to do so when it is politically advantageous for him to do so. In other words when they want to get rid of political opposition then a few backbenchers are thrown to the public in order for them to be “seen to do the right thing”. Sadly in reality the situation regarding our own political class is more terrifying then the average voter is willing to accept, which is of course, is how they get away with it.  

In order to solve today’s problems we need to look back at how others have tackled the very same issues. We all know that our society is sick but with global pharmaceutical corporations intent on killing most of us off with drugs that don’t work or actively harming us, what is the cure?

This is how Cromwell dissolved parliament. From the middle of 1649 until 1651 Cromwell was away on campaign. In the meantime, with the king gone (and with him their common cause), the various factions in Parliament began to engage in infighting. On his return, Cromwell tried to galvanise the Rump Parliament into setting dates for new elections, uniting the three kingdoms under one polity, and to put in place a broad-brush, tolerant national church. However, The Rump vacillated in setting election dates, and although it put in place a basic liberty of conscience, it failed to produce an alternative or dismantle other aspects of the existing religious settlement. In frustration, in April 1653 Cromwell demanded that the Rump establish a caretaker government of 40 members (drawn both from the Rump and the army) and then abdicate. However, the Rump returned to debating its own bill for a new government. Cromwell was so angered by this that on 20 April 1653, supported by just forty musketeers, he cleared the chamber and dissolved the Parliament by force. Several accounts exist of this incident: in one, Cromwell is supposed to have said “you are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting.”

At least two accounts agree that Cromwell snatched up the mace, symbol of Parliament’s power, and demanded that the “bauble” be taken away. Cromwell’s troops were commanded by Charles Worsley, later one of his Major Generals and one of his most trusted advisors, to whom he entrusted the mace.

In his speech Cromwell said “ It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s. So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! For a few pieces of money, temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!

So it seems that the cure of political corruption is dissolving parliament calling for a general election and sending a message to the politicians that if you fail to represent the people then you will lose your job. So here we are again in the midst of war mongers, paedophiles and fraudsters intent on creating a authoritarian world it is now time for all righteous people to come together to solve the problems of our day as our ancestors did like Oliver Cromwell.

But what should we stand for?

I’d like to think that a new parliamentary system can be created with more members of parliament and not less which is truly representative of the people. Dissolving the House of Lords permanently, a return to common law and repealing statute law. Returning the land to the people and farming our own seasonal food. Government simply should be responsible for maintaining national infrastructure, health care and the financial system in order for the people to live their lives as individuals in peace and freedom. Corporations should be broken up and going back to individuals running small to medium sized business creating more jobs and rejuvenating our high streets. We need a victims justice system and not a criminal justice system which is more about lining the pockets of lawyers and siding with criminals with pathetically low sentences which neither satisfy the victims or the needs of society.

So on the 2nd of September 2013 the members of parliament return from their summer break. If we are going to dissolve parliament this is the perfect opportunity to get rid of these politicians and prevent them from taking their seats in the House of Commons, creating an interim government and within six months holding a general election and allowing the public to decide on how their society will work.

But the question is can we dissolve parliament lawfully? Can we dissolve parliament peacefully without any violence? Will the police side with us, the people, or the politicians? If we are to create a new civilised society by the dissolving of parliament we must do this lawfully and peacefully and there is no other way to achieve our goal of real and tangible change for a future for our children and grandchildren.

The only way to find out what will happen is to turn up and dissolve parliament on the 2nd of September 2013. For more information please google The Ben Fellows Walk of Corruption 2013 facebook page.

Source:http://ning.it/19Gvou7

The Hiroshima Myth. Unaccountable War Crimes and the Lies of US Military History Tags: Japan-didn't-want-war Japan-goaded-into-War-By-American-Cabal

The Hiroshima Myth. Unaccountable War Crimes and the Lies of US Military History

 
 
hiroshima
 

This coming Tuesday, August 6, 2013, is the 68th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, the whole truth of which has been heavily censored and mythologized ever since war-weary Americans celebrated V-J Day 10 days later.

In the pitiful history lessons that were taught by my uninspired/bored history teachers (which seemed to be mostly jocks) came from patriotic and highly censored books where everything the British and US military ever did in war time was honorable and self-sacrificing and everything their opponents did was barbaric. Everybody in my graduating class of 26 swallowed the post-war propaganda in our history books. It was from these books that we learned about the “glorious” end of the war against Japan.

Of course, I now know that I had been given false information, orchestrated by war-justifying militarists (and assorted uber-patiotic historians) starting with General Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur successfully imposed total censorship of what really happened at Ground Zero. One of his first acts after taking over as viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in 1995, the Smithsonian Institution was preparing to correct some the 50-year-old pseudo-patriotic myths by staging an honest, historically-accurate display dealing with the atomic bombings. Following the vehement, orchestrated, reactionary outrage emanating from right-wing veterans groups and other patriot groups (including Newt Gingrich’s GOP-dominated Congress that threatened to stop federal funding of the Institute), the Smithsonian was forced to censor-out all of the unwelcome but contextually important parts of the story. So again we had another example of politically-motivated groups heavily altering real history because they were afraid of revealing “unpatriotic” historical truths that might shake the confidence of average Americans in our leaders, sort of like the near-total media black-out about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01 that killed thousands of innocent people and unleashed the dogs of war against innocents in Afghanistan (explore www.ae911truth.org for the documentation of that assertion).

Nagasaki on August 9, 1945

The Smithsonian historians did have a gun to their heads, of course, but in the melee, the corporate-controlled mainstream media – and therefore the public – failed to learn an important historical point, and that is this: The war could have ended in the spring of 1945 without the summer atomic bombs, and therefore there might have been no Okinawa bloodbath for thousands of American Marines and soldiers. Also there would have been no need for an American land invasion of Japan – the basis of the subsequent propaganda campaign that justified the use of atomic weapons on defenseless civilian populations and meets the definition of an international war crime and a crime against humanity.

American intelligence, with the full knowledge of President Truman’s administration, was aware of Japan’s desperate search for ways to honorably surrender months before Truman gave the fateful order to incinerate Hiroshima.

Intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, showed that the contingency plans for a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations through its Moscow ambassador as early as April of 1945. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, especially deposing the Emperor) is the only obstacle to peace.”

Truman and his advisors knew about these efforts, and the war could have ended through diplomacy by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor Hirohito – who was regarded as a deity in Japan. That reasonable concession was – seemingly illogically – refused by the US in their demands for unconditional surrender, initially demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and reiterated at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill and Stalin. Still, the Japanese continued searching for an honorable peace through negotiations.

Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson felt that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.

After Japan did surrender, MacArthur allowed the emperor to remain in place as spiritual head of Japan, the very condition that coerced the Japanese leadership to refuse to accept the humiliating “unconditional surrender” terms.

So the two essential questions that need answering to comprehend what was going on behind the scenes are these:

1) Why did the US refuse to accept Japan’s only demand concerning their surrender (the retention of the emperor) and

2) why were the atomic bombs used when victory in the Pacific was already a certainty?

Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote:

“The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam Declaration (insisting on Japan’s unconditional surrender) was made on July 26, 1945.”

Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There:

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said (in a 1963 interview in Newsweek):

 

 

 

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

There are a number of factors that contributed to the Truman administration’s decision to use the bombs.

1) The US had made a huge investment in time, mind and money (a massive 2 billion in 1940 dollars) to produce three bombs, and there was no inclination – and no guts – to stop the momentum.

2) The US military and political leadership – as did many ordinary Americans – had a tremendous appetite for revenge because of Pearl Harbor. Mercy wasn’t in the mindset of the US military or the war-weary populace, and the missions against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accepted – no questions asked – by most of those folks who only knew the sanitized, national security version of events.

3) The fissionable material in Hiroshima’s bomb was uranium. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb. Scientific curiosity was a significant factor that pushed the project to its completion. The Manhattan Project scientists (and the US Army director of the project, General Leslie Groves) were curious about “what would happen if an entire city was leveled by a single uranium bomb?” “What about a plutonium bomb?”

The decision to use both bombs had been made well in advance of August 1945. Accepting the surrender of Japan was not an option if the science experiment was to go ahead. Of course the three-day interval between the two bombs was unconscionably short if the Hiroshima bomb was designed to coerce immediate surrender. Japan’s communications and transportation capabilities were in shambles, and no one, not even the US military, much less the Japanese high command, fully understood what had happened at Hiroshima. (The Manhattan Project was so top secret that even Douglas MacArthur, commanding general of the entire Pacific theatre, had been kept out of the loop until five days before Hiroshima.)

4) The Russians had proclaimed their intent to enter the war with Japan 90 days after V-E Day (Victory in Europe Day, May 8), which would have been Aug. 8, two days after Hiroshima was bombed. Indeed, Russia did declare war on Japan on August 8 and was advancing eastward across Manchuria when Nagasaki was incinerated. The US didn’t want Japan surrendering to Russia or sharing the spoils of war.

Russia was soon to be the only other superpower – and a future enemy – so the first nuclear threat “messages” of the Cold War were sent. Russia indeed received far less of the spoils of war than they had anticipated, and the two superpowers were instantly mired in the Cold War stalemate that led to the unaffordable nuclear arms race and the possibility of total extinction of the human race. What did happen was the mutual moral and financial bankruptcies of both nations that occurred over the next couple of generations of military madness.

An estimated 80,000 innocent civilians, plus 20,000 weaponless young Japanese conscripts died instantly in the Hiroshima bombing. Hundreds of thousands more suffered slow deaths from agonizing burns, radiation sickness, leukemias, anemias and untreatable infections for the rest of their shortened lives. Generations of the survivor’s progeny were also afflicted with horrible radiation-induced illnesses, cancers and premature deaths, still going on to this very hour.

Another shameful reality that has been covered up is the fact that 12 American Navy pilots, their existence well known to the US command, were instantly incinerated in the Hiroshima jail on the fateful day

So the official War Department-approved version of the end of the war in the Pacific contained a new batch of myths that took their places among the long lists of myths that Americans are continuously fed by our corporate, military, political and media opinion leaders, the gruesomeness of war being changed to glorification in the process. Among the other censored out realities include what really happened in the US military invasions and occupations of the countries of North Korea, Iran, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, the Philippines, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Colombia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. This list doesn’t cover the uncountable secret Pentagon/CIA covert operations and assassination plots in the rest of the world, where as many as150 nations contain American military bases (permission lavishly paid for by bribery or threats of economic sanctions).

But somehow most of us still hang on to our shaky “my country right or wrong” patriotism, desperately wanting to believe the cunningly-orchestrated myths that say that the war-profiteering multibillionaire corporate elite (and their politicians, military leaders and media talking heads who are in their employ) only work for peace, justice, equality, liberty and “making the world safe” for predatory capitalism.

While it is true that the US military has faced down the occasional despot, with necessary sacrifice from dead and mortally-wounded (in body, mind and spirit) American soldiers and veterans, more often than not the rationalization for going to war are the same as those of the “godless communists”, the anti-American “insurgents” and “freedom fighters” who want to convince us Yankees to just go home where we belong.

August 6 and 9, 1945 are just two more examples of the brain-washing that goes on in all “total war” political agendas, which are always accompanied by the inevitable human slaughter that is euphemistically labeled “collateral damage” or “friendly fire”.

It might already be too late to rescue and resuscitate the humanitarian, peacemaking America that we used to know and love. It might be too late to effectively confront the corporate hijacking of liberal democracy in America. It might be too late to successfully bring down the arrogant and greedy ruling elites who are selfishly dragging our world down the road to our destruction. The rolling coup d’etat of what I call Friendly American Fascism may have already accomplished its goals.

But there may still be some hope. Rather than being silent about the wars that the war-mongers are provoking all over the planet (with the very willing assistance of the Pentagon, the weapons industry and their lapdogs in Congress), people of conscience need to start learning the whole truth of history, despite the discomfort we will feel (cognitive dissonance) when the truth can’t be ignored any more.

We need to start owning up to America’s uncountable war crimes that have been orchestrated in our names. And then we need to go to the streets, publicly protesting and courageously refusing to cooperate with those who are transforming America into a criminal rogue nation that will eventually be targeted for downfall by its billions of suffering victims outside our borders, similar to what happened to Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan.

Doing what is right for the whole of humanity for a change, rather than just doing what is profitable or advantageous for our over-privileged, over-consumptive and unsustainable American way of life, would be real honor, real patriotism and an essential start toward real peace.

SOURCE

14-year-old teen GMO activist schools ignorant TV host on human rights, food labeling Tags: Rachel Parent GMO labeling activist

Sunday, August 04, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Her name is Rachel Parent, and she's suddenly an internet sensation for her cool-headed debate about GMOs on a popular Canadian TV show. (She's also the founder of the Kids Right to Know GMO Walk.) As you'll see in the video below, Rachel calmly argues for the basic human right to know what's in our food, even as the condescending bully of a host named Kevin O'Leary verbally assaults the girl and practically accuses her of murdering children.

During the debate, Kevin O'Leary, co-host of the The Lang And O'Leary Exchange show, viciously attacked Rachel, first accusing her of being a "lobbyist" against GMOs (an absurd accusation that O'Leary knows is false, as there is no corporate interest in honest food labeling), and then equating her position of questioning GMOs with somehow supporting a holocaust of widespread death of children. Despite the outrageous attacks, Rachel Parent simply countered his utterly contrived accusations with the facts: GMO crops don't out-produce regular crops, GMOs are a dangerous global experiment using human beings as lab rats, and consumers should have the right to know what they're buying or eating.

(It is astonishing that people like O'Leary want consumers to have less information about what they're buying, keeping them in the dark and subjecting them to the accidental ingestion of modified foods that have been linked to organ damage and cancer tumors.)

See Rachel Parent's Facebook page at:
http://www.facebook.com/gmonews

And watch her video debate with Kevin O'Leary at TV.naturalnews.com:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=207576091B7B916EAF7F8B971D186DF2

Here it is on YouTube:
 

 

Tips for Rachel - how to respond to GMO death cultists

Rachel is astonishingly good at the art of debate, even at just 14 years of age. (See her picture on the right, too, and notice she's got a face made for television.)

In addition to celebrating Rachel's amazing debate, I also wanted to offer her some advice in confronting these manipulative, anti-human "death cult" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary, who actually suggested, when asked about GMO labeling advocates, "I have an answer for these people. Stop eating. Then we can get rid of them." (Yes, he would love to usher in another holocaust as long as Monsanto got to run the concentration camps...)

First, you've got to fire back and remind people like O'Leary that GMOs are not without their own risks. O'Leary's claim that Rachel endorses the death of children because she doesn't support genetically modified rice engineered with extra vitamin A completely glosses over the inherent risks of toying with the genetic code of self-replicating crops. There are at least three risks that can be used in any debate to silence anyone trying to shove GMOs down your throat:

Risk #1) Human health side effects. What is the effect of GM crops on humans who eat them? Will they cause organ damage? Infertility? Unforeseen side effects? Wouldn't it have been wise to answer these questions before rolling out GM crops across the world?

Risk #2) Genetic pollution. Will the artificially engineered genes spread through the crops grown in the wild, altering them in unforeseen ways and possibly creating new genetic vulnerabilities that could lead to sudden crop failures? By invoking this argument, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire human race at risk of starvation" from an unforeseen crop failure caused by GMO pollution. And if challenged on that, she could have pointed to all the other times "scientists" have failed to foresee the devastating implications of technologies that were widely believed to be safe when they were first rolled out: thalidomide, DDT, nuclear power plants, the agricultural policies that caused the Dust Bowl, etc.

Risk #3) Ecosystem devastation. How will GMO crops interact with insect pests and pollinators? Rachel could have rightly invoked the global collapse of honeybee pollinators and pointed to GMOs as one of the factors believed to be partially responsible. Will GMOs also alter insects and make them more resistant to natural plant defense mechanisms in non-GMO crops? If so, that could prove devastating to non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests or plains. We've already seen how the use of Roundup -- the herbicide commonly used on GM crops -- has resulted in the rise of "superweed" that require enormous quantities of herbicide chemicals to eradicate. That's alarming proof that GMOs actually lead to the use of more chemicals, not less.

With arguments like these, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire planet at risk of a man-made ecological disaster worse than the Great Dust Bowl." She could have then asked O'Leary whether he "supported global starvation for humanity."
 

Rachel Parent is the kind of truth-telling activist who will ultimately defeat Monsanto

These are just ideas of support for Rachel's next debate. In my view, she was absolutely fantastic and really made waves on Canadian television by putting O'Leary in his place.

Natural News salutes Rachel Parent, and we know that her debate skills will only continue to gain strength as she acquires more experience doing battle with "cult of death" Monsanto apologists like O'Leary -- the kind of people who don't mind risking the entire future of life on Earth as long as profiteering companies like Monsanto can make a few extra bucks next quarter.

In my opinion, they should fire O'Leary for being such a homicidal racist -- i.e. openly supporting risking the death of the entire race of humans -- and replace him with Rachel Parent who obviously makes a lot more sense and has a far better ability to connect with the viewing audience.

Check out Rachel leading the "Kids Right to Know" march:

See Rachel's video criticizing Kevin O'Leary's absurd, anti-humanist attacks on children and their food:

RSS
Search a Blog

June 2015 (295)
May 2015 (378)
April 2015 (396)
March 2015 (400)
February 2015 (374)
January 2015 (454)
December 2014 (457)
November 2014 (524)
October 2014 (543)
September 2014 (509)
August 2014 (462)
July 2014 (447)
June 2014 (15)

WHO IS ONLINE
Support B.O.L.E.

Thank you for supporting the BOLE

Your support to have the B.O.L.E. (incl.all articles) open and free for everyone is much appreciated.

NEW *** We also take

1EjsSN5TtS5YctNqZDo5vf35nfYANJvwhe

 

Products for your Wellness

mindplace  

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

 

This website is powered by Spruz

Live Support