The Great betrayal of the British people

Further reading on how Fabianism is trying to take over .
The following article shows some evidence of the increasingly rapid take over of our country. This take over is illegal, it is not sanctioned by the people of Britain. In Britain our loyalty is to the Crown as defined by our constitution. Any "law" which attempts to change our constitution is treason.


http://www.tpuc.org/News/news.050707.jh.perog..html

The Great Betrayal of the British People Part 3 - The Fabian War from within.
The information contained in this article has been researched by Elizabeth Beckitt, Shaun O'Connell and John Harris.
A question of the royal prerogative is the power we give the queen to govern us. She is in charge of the Judiciary, the armed forces (of which she is the commander in chief). She is in charge of the church, royal assent, chief executive, treaties and foreign relations. These powers are given to ministers to use when necessary, they cannot be used outside our constitutional laws.
In are constitution these prerogative powers are a part of the Monarch and cannot be taken from her even by an act of parliament, so in the 2005 constitutional reform act Mr Blair and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) took them over with the exception of:
Appointment of Prime Minister
Assent to legislation
Prorogation and dissolution of parliament (the Queen accepts ministerial advice on the use of these powers)
The prerogative power is part of her contract with the people to govern them well. In the recent case 23rd May 2007 of the people of the Chagos Archipelago island's before the appeal court, Margaret Beckett as the foreign secretary took the case to the court of appeal after two high court judges had found for the Chagosians and told her she would have to show good cause for a stay on their judgement. Lord justice Sedley said "...by making an order in council under the royal prerogative to stop the islanders returning was unlawful and an abuse of power..." The government claimed that under the royal prerogative powers that belong to the Queen, government ministers in her name were immune from judicial scrutiny. Indeed said lord justice Waller "...the decision had been taken by a minister acting without any restraint, indeed the crown maybe doing something but if she only knew the true position, she would prefer not to do and yet it is said that the government can hide behind the crown's prerogative..."
The storey behind this is that Harold Wilson in the 60's removed the people from their island Diego Garcia giving the USA a lease of this island so they could set up an air base to use to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. A strategy that even then, was set in place so the Americans could wage air strikes against Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran from a conveniently placed air base. The Fabian strategy of globalisation has been on the table for a long time. Tony Blair was the head of the Fabian Society before becoming Prime minister.
Of the three judges in the appeal court was Master of the rolls Sir Anthony Clarke who refused a stay on the effect of their judgement allowing the islanders to return immediately. The judges condemned (as repugnant) Whitehall's decision to "...exile a whole population in the 1960's and 70's..." and the solicitor said "...this is now the third time that the leader of the Chagosian community in exile, has proved to the satisfaction of English judges that nothing can separate his companions from their homeland..."
The present government has claimed for itself the royal prerogative without constraint. It is now claiming the right to alter the constitution made by our ancestors and take the power to declare war when this is an example of their almost insane use of it - in terms of the Chagosians. This is against chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1215, against the power we give the Queen and against us and our contract with the monarch.
Please note the following:
In 1215 King John had been excommunicated for signing Magna Carta which proclaimed our free church and Magna Carta itself was ordered to be destroyed. In 1215 chapter 39 lays down for the king "...No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land..." there was no law for the Chagosians to be removed from their land.
400 years later Charles 1 warned the people before a rump parliament of 58 members backed by the army that "...power without law, making laws, means no man or his property is safe..."
In 1910 barely 300 years later a liberal government which was also Fabian took the first steps to give total power to the Commons.
Asquith put forward a bill to stop the power of the lords controlling the Commons against the treason and felony act of 1848 and to put all decisions on taxation into the hands of the Commons alone, thus destroying the Fiscal Prerogative.
Edward VII then king refused it and told him to take it to the country. Asquith did so and lost his majority. Edward VII died and a new young king George V came to the throne in 1911, his adviser on the constitutional affairs is traditionally the lord chancellor, in 1911 this was Lord Lore another Fabian. king George could not have known that people standing for parliament or taking on parliamentary power (who give an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the constitution) would betray or be intent on destroying it.
So when Asquith told him that the royal assent an essential part of any bill, if it is to become law was automatic because no bill had been sent back by any monarch since the time of Queen Anne 1707-08. This frame work was never put before parliament and has been accepted ever since although it is Treason, against the sovereign and has led to the invalidation of any subsequent law. Through the 30's Ramsey McDonald another Fabian deputy prime minister would have seen to it that no alteration was made. We have since seen under Attley a Fabian, Harold Wilson a communist (from which Fabianism derives) Tony Blair who was the head of the Fabian society and now Gordon Brown who is also a Fabian continuing the strategy to destroy the sovereignty of this country (see Arthur Toynbee's speech of 1931)
The most urgent concern is that these people are claiming they are going to make a new Constitution to replace our Constitution (that was made by us the people) with the usual grace of untruth for the people. The prerogative power is going to be in the hands of the Commons and the people without constraint, the people do not need a new constitution they have one already that is there to protect them, we hope we do not have to fight as our ancestors did to retain it. No democracy can function securely without Constitutional safe guards. Why? Because human beings are always striving for more power, this is why we have a sovereign bound by Constitutional Laws. To make the people Sovereign would give the Commons the power they crave, they act as though they have the power now but they know it is invalid. They need to force the people to commit Treason against the constitution, for their strategy to succeed, hence a new constitution with absolutely no constraint.
No democracy can function without a Constitution we have seen historically how Lenin, Hitler and Mugabe have destroyed theirs and a Ugandan lorry driver talking on news night said "...it is no good voting for another government they simply change the constitution making a banana republic..." For example this government has had a system of demonising other sovereign nations so they can then go to war thus: Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and aiming for Iran because their interest is not the laws that constrain them but globalisation.
In the 1911 Parliament Act (void due to automatic assent) the majority party in power has all decision over taxation. In the fiscal prerogative - all taxation is for government administration and to leave as much money in the pockets of the tax payer as possible. It is not for paying corrupt leaders in Africa. The people of this country are generous and upright and will give generously to help people in Africa through charities and other ways, nor is it to be used for wars (under our Constitutional Laws we cannot go to war against another nation unless that nation declares war on us first FACT), more surveillance equipment , Id cards and a Police State to mention but a few. (to imprison the British people within their own nation, then trick them into abolishing it)
The taxation extension of bureaucracy in this country causes inflation. The civil servants advise on flood protection was robbed of 50 million pounds to pay for government propaganda.
In the interest of making "...every body equal laws..." that have been brought in to force social mobility but they are in fact stopping social mobility. Cardinal Wolsey was more powerful than a king and was the son of a butcher. Arch bishop Cranmer who wrote much of the prayer book was the son of a blacksmith. This government by social repression is causing a paralysis of social mobility on our taxation.
Pension credits have been wiped out to the loss of pensioners that have paid tax all their lives, council tax has the cost of immigrants, assemblies and Councillors pensions of which is really a service charge. We are having to pay 200 billion a year to Europe for the honour of having fisherman's boats destroyed, farmers having their quotas removed and VAT on nearly everything we buy. The entry into Europe itself is none existent because of the Fabians automatic assent. Even under the automatic assent they have to use the prerogative power, which cannot function against the Constitution and they are using the royal prerogative power to make a further Constitution with Europe which will give them permission to remove our Constitution and this is TREASON.
"...treason you say, that does not exist anymore after it was repealed in the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act under section 36.3..." Well here's a fact for you - The treason law could not be repealed as it was made permanent in 1807 and backed up by The Felony and Treason Act 1848.
These are the people we have elected to represent us. They are making out that everything they are doing is legal when it is not they are basically confidence tricksters. The constraint laid down by law upon all members of Parliament (including the Prime Minister) is in the Oath of Allegiance they swear to the monarch. To act against this Oath as they did in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is plainly TREASON. That is why they now intend to do away with the Oath. For to remove this most essential part of which is ultimately, the only way they can have a seat in Parliament, is the final phase to destroy the Queen's Prerogative powers and make the people sovereign - thus the Commons will have ultimate power without any form of constraint. Resulting in the duped people of England handing their country to the EU on a plate.
For your reference
The limitations of royal prerogative are clear. Sir Robert Howard: "No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the king ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
Blackstone pointed out that English law was superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the constitution: "A right of every Englishman is that of applying to the Courts of Justice for redress of injuries. Since the law in England is the supreme arbiter of every man's life, liberty and property, Courts of Justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein."
The Cambridge Law Journal, 1955, referring to (now Professor Sir, QC) William Wade's The Basis of Legal Sovereignty, said that: "sovereign legislation depends for its authority on (what Salmond calls) an 'ultimate legal principle', i.e.: a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be given. If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey (the UK) parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. It is above and beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute.

source http://www.tpuc.org/News/news.050707.jh.perog..html