Harmans Hatred Hormones Exposed By the Pope.

WE still have a chance yet.
Well Luv A Duk Ooo Errr Get Her !
If this Equality Bill fails, due toHarman wanting all things to be equal and in law that the Muslims could beat the crap out of gays and the Christian Church must take Gay/Lesbian/Bi-Sexual Priests or Vicars. In the name of their right to be able to under religious law and equality of diversity. or something like that.
Our constitution would remain intact.

But have you thought what the Islamists make of this?
This is to Feminise your Moral and Civic leaders.
Rowan must realise he'll be the first in the queue when Islam calls knocking for Sharia Law.
It's Corruption of the Church.
Or you could look at it like this....the Christian Church being Pro-Mohammed = Anti-Christ ?
You won't see Immams or mosques being forced to accept gay/lesbian or bisexuals as their Religious and Civic Leaders.
New Labour have really thought out how to do away with us the INDIGENOUS POPULATION.
Corruption.
Treason.
Subversion of Christian Morals and Teachings.
Christian Rights Eroded.
Minority'sPromoted.
Foreign Ideologies and Culture surplanting the Indigenous one.
Maybe the Catholics and Rome are now realising who their enemy is in Britain ?
The Church of England seems more intent on being a battering ram, forcing forward Immorality in the face of Christian Beliefs.

POPE Encourages Catholic Church to Condemn Harriet Hormones Equality Bill.

Pope Benedict XVI has condemned British equality legislation for running contrary to "natural law" as he confirmed his first visit to the UK later this year.

Turkeys and Christmas come to...Oh wait a min...Winterval comes to mind.

Let them, the Perverted Church Of England and according to reports, The Archbishop of Canterbury, crow over their dwindling but dis-believing congregations. Let the TRAITORS build their Funeral Pyre.

We shall Renew Christianity as we shalll Renew our Country and our People.

BNP...What choice do you have...more of the same ?

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING

.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land.

Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.

Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety.

Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.

A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

Read it all

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/28/climate-change-fanaticism-is-all-about-government-power-reader-post/

Morg
.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Codex_Alimentarius

Controversy

The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for food - including vitamin and mineral supplement - safety. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.^[2][3] Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection.
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.^[4] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.^[4] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005.^[5] Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements"^[6], which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines.^[7] This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are "to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements." The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call "for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements." The WHO has also said that the Guidelines "ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals." ^[8]
Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.^[9]
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public." ^[10]
Additional controversy has been expressed by proponents of ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems, such as the Slow Food movement^[11], who view the Codex Alimentarius as antithetical to this goal. According to the Manifesto on the Future of Food, the Codex Alimentarius has "codified policies designed to serve the interest of global agribusiness above all others, while actively undermining the rights of farmers and consumers".<sup>[12]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</sup>

I honestly don't know what to make of this short film. I tend to see things the same way, but I really don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other. All I have is a "gut feeling" that the film is pointing me in the right direction.

So please, here is one occasion where your comments are valuable. Especially so if you have some knowledge about the topic.



Here's the original web site I found it on - it's definitely worth a read. And from the little I know I'd say it sounds about right.

http://ukwebspider.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-are-you-tired-what-is-it-thats.html

Readers: please speak to us.

Thank you

Morg
.