It's a Wonderful Anti-White Christmas Story

Bilderberg-picked EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia

THE EU, RUSSIA GLOBAL NWO PACT

Bilderberg-picked EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia 

Written by  William F. Jasper

Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:45

EU OFFERS RUSSIA PACT FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE - NWO. 

While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.

In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated:

By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20. 

As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”
“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:

Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.
Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”
However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated:

The point I am making is that when we talk of "governance" and "democracy," we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State. 

A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared:

As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together. 

Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers
Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as "Bilderberg Van Rompuy," a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote:

Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles. 

Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote:

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy." 

David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky "conspiracy theory," is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.
Photo of Russia's President Vladimir Putin (left) with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso during the EU-Russia Summit, Dec. 21, 2012

Time to bring our troops home, start building up our War Machine, which would bring huge amounts of Employment as well, start recruiting.

Civil War is beckoning in the EU and Britain as we are BETRAYED AT EVERY TURN by unelected lickspittles who cannot trust each other but somehow manages to get "Elected" to power and then do the complete opposite of what their promises to the voters were.

Their Multi-Cult indoctrination at school doesn't seem to be having any effect on a growing number of disaffected INDIGENOUS youth.
They are no longer able to deny their own gut instinct that mass immigration is NOT good for Britain or themselves.
We need to tap into and channel this PATRIOTIC energy.
We need to remind them that they must now help us to help them to help themselves, their future saved for them by them.

IT'S THEIR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM THEM WE ARE FIGHTING FOR.

  

 

 

CIVIL UNREST WARNING - NEW LABOUR PASSING THE BUCK

City Leaders Warn Of 'Civil Unrest' Amid Cuts

City leaders have warned that spending cuts could lead to social unrest and the "break-up of civil society".

The council leaders of three of England's biggest cities - Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield - say the north of England has been unfairly targeted.

But there are also signs of a backlash from rural authorities, mostly Conservative-led, who claim the shires are losing out disproportionately under the Government's cuts.

The criticism presents a headache for David Cameron, who announced in the Autumn Statement that councils must find a further 2% of savings in 2014/15.

That comes on top of the 27% cuts announced in 2010.

The Labour leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield - where Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is an MP - wrote to The Observer accusing Whitehall of "Dickensian" views.
"Rising crime, increasing community tension and more problems on our streets will contribute to the break-up of civil society if we do not turn back," they write.

"The one nation Tory brand of conservatism recognised the duty of government to help the country's most deprived in the belief that economic and social responsibility benefited us all.
"The unfairness of the Government's cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation.
"We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder."
Separately, The Sunday Telegraph reported that more than 120 rural councils were weighing up a judicial review of the spending settlement for local authorities because it was "grossly unfair" and would hit services in remote areas.

DON'T SAY WE DIDN'T TELL YOU IT WAS COMING.

 

A New Year approaches with warnings of Civil Unrest due to the cuts in their budgets. 

If the Lib/Lab/CONned hadn't flooded our country with millions of immigrants their would never be a warning about Civil Unrest due to the cuts.

Why ?

Because we wouldn't be giving our wealth and country away to every one who steps foot on our land.

We could use some the £Billions saved by removing ALL BENEFITS FOR ALL IMMIGRANTS until our own are not found wanting.

If your going to have Civil Unrest on Englands Streets then look at who has bought all this down on us......the Lib/Lab/CONned will have NO SOLUTION, if they were good enough they wouldn't have allowed this country to become part of the THIRD WORLD.

Look towards those who offer the ANSWERS to the destruction of our land and people.    Before it turns into CIVIL WAR

We now produce only 40% of the food needed to feed everyone.

Fields have been given over to "SET A SIDE" schemes, now growing Trees and Shrubs instead of Crops and Grazing Fields.

Then add the Immigration problem on top of that.

We are now told about the HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of Imported DISEASE RIDDEN ASH TREES -

FORESTRY COMMISSION KNOWINGLY PLANTED 70 THOUSAND DISEASED ASH TREES, JUST WHEN WE NEEDED SPACE TO BUILD HOUSES ON ?

Strange how many Acres of Land have just become freed up for building houses on after the removal of the "DISEASED TREES"

"chalara fraxinea – is now threatening to wipe out 80 million trees in Britain"

Coincidence ?

WAKE UP.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORMER KGB AGENT - BRAINWASHING USING EDUCATION

EU NWO PRESIDENT VAN RUMPOY PLEADS FOR RUSSIA TO JOIN WITH THE EU IN A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT - NWO

The great global warming swindle - Full version

 

All "THEY" are trying to do is TAX the AIR THAT WE BREATH in order to line the pockets of MULTI-MILLION/BILLIONAIRES.

Declaration Of Right

This is a brief outline of our inalienable RIGHTS.

Definition:

Inalienable -

Adjective:

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights of the citizen"

Declaration Of Right

  

"The Petition of Right at the beginning of the 17th century, and the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights at the end, embody a century long fight to constrain the power of Government. At that time it was the Monarch who desired a divine right. Today it is our Parlimentarians. The Petition of Right and Declaration of Right are Common Law contracts between the People and the Crown. The Bill of Rights is a statue law enactment of the Declaration of Right.

The Declaration of Right was imposed upon William and Mary as a condition of their assuming the Crown - in other words, they would only be elected by the People if they accepted its terms.

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that -

no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has indeed broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties.

Other constitutional rights given by these contracts -

• The right to bear arms
• The right to petition the Sovereign
• Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause
• The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies
• Habeas corpus is not to be denied
• No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament
• Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians
• Government will not impose martial law during peacetime

The right to bear arms gives every person the right to self defence using reasonable force, including deadly force if appropriate. Using tragic events as an excuse to remove that right has historically been the work of governments with good reason to fear their people - governments intent on some kind of future totalitarian control of their populations."

With thanks to -

The British Constitution Group.

The BCG don't make any mention of the FOREIGNERS or offspring of FOREIGNERS who are now sitting in positions of  jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

Don't you think that's a point we should be making vehemently and explaining how this DENYS US OUR RIGHTS ?

I do think that there is more to RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS than for self defence.

Surely it was also used to keep the PTB on their toes and to ward off Totalitarian and Despotic Regimes as well as for the rapid mobilisation of the Population, used to carrying and using Arms, against INVASION.

I don't think an unarmed and untrained in Arms "Olivers Army" would have fared well against the well Armed and trained Royalists in the ENGLISH CIVIL WAR.

"THEY" cannot stop us BEARING ARMS  ENGLISHMEN SHOULD ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS, as laid down in the ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS (1689)and the PTB come for them, then they will be facing Armed ENGLISHMEN who would then be within their RIGHTS to FIGHT A NEW CIVIL WAR AGAINST THE TRAITORS AND THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY US.

THEY ARE OUR RIGHTS - "THEY" CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY AND NO LAW CAN SUPERCEDE RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL TRY TO TELL YOU DIFFERENT.

RIGHTS OVERRULE  LAWS.

ENGLISHMEN SHOULD STAND UP, BECOME THE FEARLESS AND FEARED ENGLISHMAN AGAIN AND BE COUNTED, AND FIGHT FOR OUR/YOUR RIGHTS AS AN ENGLISHMAN.

AS WE HAVE NOTHING TO FIGHTBACK WITH AT PRESENT

THE LIB/LAB/CONned ARE PISSING ON OUR GRANDFATHERS GRAVES, OUR WAR DEAD GRAVES, OUR ANCESTORS GRAVES.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

 Taken from Wikipedia -

The meaning of RIGHTS

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.^[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,^[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."^[1] The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated — rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.