Boris Johnson - A dangerous Dhimmi ClownGood old Boris. He has outlined his plans for housing in London. He laid them out whilst speaking at a London Jewish Forum breakfast last week. More information and video of Boris selling out the True Brits here. Sorry but the sound quality is very poor on the video.
He has guaranteed action on housing if he is succesful in his campaign to become Mayor of Londonistan. Sounds great doesn't it. But then you find he is not talking about homes for the thousands of ex-servicemen both single and married who are currently homeless. Boris is thinking big. Big but not British.
More five bedroomed house to be built. And who needs these huge homes? Why the people who make up the Charedi Community in London and whose votes he is currently chasing after. The Charedi are an extremely orthodox form of Judaism that believes that the ideal number of children for a woman to have is around about 12. Good old Boris. Always thinking of others. Except his own kind.
Taking an opportunity to ingratiate himself further, he launched an attack on the British National Party by saying:
“I think racism and anti-semitism are a poison in the bloodstream of Europe. We must not allow the BNP to take on any aura of moderation and become in any way acceptable.”Just as well Boris is a pig ignorant buffoon, otherwise he might have done a bit of research and discovered a little bit about the Charedi beliefs towards non-jews and also their appalling treatment of women.
You may have heard about the now infamous case of Miriam Shear, a 50 year old religious American immigrant to Israel, who was brutally beaten on November 24 for refusing to move to the back of the bus, on a line that was not even officially designated as “mehadrin.” Read the account in her own words here.
I wont go into their believes in detail, other than to say they consider themselves to be the chosen ones and everyone else something less than human. They, at least, are not trying to blow us to bits in Our Country and live peacefully enough behind their Eruvs. Remember them?
Boris is at No 8 in his younger days. Diddy Dave Cameron is at No 2. Nothing like the "Old Boy" network to get on in this worldNot to be outdone by Boris, Red Ken is also working away like a little beaver to get the Jewish vote also and you can read that here. Ken must be hoping that the Jews have forgotten his previous attacks on them and their faith. Dream on Ken.
Good old Boris, he really is a star. As you say he is a buffoon, an excellent description of him, I find his bumbling antics quite amusing and would never be able to take him serious in whatever field he chooses to do. He is your typical upper class twit and I’m sure Monty Pythons would have made many hilarious sketches on the strength of him.
ReplyDeleteIf he and red Ken were the only opponents of the BNP it would be a walk-over. Livingstone and his corrupt cronies are so deep in the shit they’re going to need a snorkel just to breathe, even the blacks are turning against them. Looks like the BNP for County Hall then!!!.
Too late Boris old bean the BNP are already acceptable!
ReplyDeleteThe British people have viewed the pigs with their elite snouts in the trough and concluded this sight is very unacceptable.
How the hell you and your ilk even dream that you represent the people of this country i shall never know. But then you don't! you represent the multicultural hell hole you've created.
How come when the country is more than overcrowded you encourage larger families by building even bigger homes? when all every single one of the 2.500 homeless soldiers in London would he happy with a normal British house?
Come on Britain get your brains in gear vote for the party that puts you first not those destroying what was a green and pleasant land
VOTE BNP.
Don't Red Ken and Boris make a charming couple eh? Not like those wicked nazis Richard and Simone.
ReplyDeleteI can just see Boris tickling Ken's newts in his flat, and Red Ken over in Henley mingling amiably with the regatta chatterati.
Ho-ho!
Nice one, GA.
i wish boris and red ken or the entire goverment could explain this one.why in a time when they are all going on about climate change and we all need to cut down on fuel consumption,smoking drinking,eating,breathnig etc.then they flood the country with people from the african continent ? who find our country so much colder they need the heating on all year round,are given gas goozler cars(free) to carry their daleks,children and shopping around ? given vast amount of welfare to fill their shopping trolley's with, and then contribute to the enviroment by throwing all their rubbish and dirty nappies into the street ?
ReplyDeleteBNP for london.
"The British people have viewed the pigs with their elite snouts in the trough and concluded this sight is very unacceptable."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately those pigs are in power and they will cling onto power by any means necessary. There's no way in hell they will allow the BNP to challenge them. Expect a massive smear campaign, trumped up charges for the leadership and possibly an assassination attempt on Griffin and top leadership by members of the far left or islamic extremists.
Well Leon your post about American attitudes certainly perked me up a bit. I wish we had a proper constitution and the right to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteGood Luck America
GA
ReplyDeleteThe National Rifle Association is open to everyone, especially to Britons who are on the receiving end of high levels of gun crime yet guns have been banned.. I'd recommend that all British Nationalists join this organisation. www.nra.com
English bill of rights...protestants were given the right to bear arms GA!
ReplyDeleteThis was royal and the gov cannot revoke it.
When Cameron talks of giving us a bill of rights it's so he can remove that entitlement he thinks we don't about it.
This has really pixxed me off it seems our sovereign the Queen knows that she is not!
They try to keep us in order by deception we owe no allegience to LIZ at all.
I know we only give her 65 pence or so a week but why should i pay a GERMAN immigrant anything if thats all she is?
Traitors - one and all - parliamentary games since 1972
by IanPP on Sat 20 Oct 2007 16:40 BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos
Is there a political solution?
Reading this posted on the comment section of the Express there is'nt one.
http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/22493
THE TYBURN TREE MAY FLOWER AGAIN!!
19.10.07, 8:34am
I read with a degree of wry amusement the assurance from Mr Broon that his "Red Lines" had been agreed and, therefore, we could all sleep soundly in our beds. One of these Red Lines was, according to The Great Leader, the preservation of our Justice System and Our Law Making Freedoms. Oh, Yeah? Not according to some VERY highly placed Constitutional experts. Read below to expose yet ANOTHER blatant lie from Broon.
In my researches on our Sovereignty and Constitution I had cause to write to Lord Falconer in August 2006 when he was Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I pointed out to him that, on the 29th September, The Rt.Hon.Alderman Sir Gavyn Arthur, then Lord Mayor of London, gave the 2003 "Denning Lecture" in Gray's Inn before a audience of distinguished and undoubtedly learned lawyers. His subject was "The City and the Law".
As an introduction he gave a summary of our Common Law but then pointed out that there are TWO systems of law operating in the UK today and that since the enactment by Parliament of the ECA1972 there had been a quiet revolution in our legal system.
He went on to say that it was not until the House of Lords handed down their judgement on the Factortame case that it became apparent that where English Law and the Law of the European Community(EC) conflicted that the EC Law prevailed. From that he drew the conclusion, (that had also been arrived at by many others that I can quote), that Parliament was no longer sovereign. (Sir Gavyn confirmed to me that there had been no dissent from his audience at his conclusion).
From such a statement, and knowing that Parliament consists of Her Majesty the Queen who is the only person Sovereign in Parliament and the two Houses which are not sovereign of themselves, I could only draw the conclusion that the Queen had not been Sovereign since the moment She gave the ECA1972 the Royal Assent. She had effectively abdicated Her Sovereign status and surrendered up all constitutional power and authority on giving the ECA1972 the Royal Assent and the sovereignty of the British people had been surrendered to the EU.
I was reluctant to draw such an awesome conclusion. I asked Falconer if he could confirm that I was wrong and that the Queen was still Sovereign and thus so was Parliament.
A Mr.J.Copeland replied on Falconer's behalf. This is what he wrote:
"I can confirm that the Queen is Head of State, Head of the Executive, Head of the Judiciary, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, as a result of a long period of evolution the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced. Minsters of the Crown in the name of the Sovereign govern the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Crown, that is the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity - are executed almost exclusively by Ministers. The enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 has not altered this.".
In point of fact no British Monarch has had absolute power though many tried to exercise such power. It was to prevent such an attempt at absolute power that the Magna Carta was brought into being in 1215 and which is a foundation stone of our Constitution. Article 61 states specifically the power held by the people if the Monarch departs from the lawful way."
Copeland went on:
"However, as outlined in your letter, one of the most significant new sources of the British Constitution in recent years has been the EU. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome and passed the European Communities Act 1972, the superiority of European Law was accepted, and parliament was no longer sovereign (although the UK can leave the EU any time it wishes).
As a result, British Courts now have the power to review Acts of parliament and in the light of EU legislation, suspend Statute Law.". Again here we have an assumption of power by the EU, with the agreement of Parliament, to write our "Constitution" for us! Why is there no argument in the Commons regarding the constitutional treaty? All parties had agreed our subjugation to the EU in 1972.
The incongruities and constitutional errors in these two paragraphs are self evident. However they plainly point to the fact that the British are no longer a Sovereign, independent and self governing nation. That the Queen is no longer our Sovereign, ( She is now subject to the superiority of EU Law), as She became on the death of Her Father George VI; as She herself confirmed in Her Declaration of Sovereignty before Her Accession Privy Council on 8th.February 1952 ;and as we elected Her to be on Her Coronation in exchange for Her Coronation Oath in which She declared how She would govern us.
Our Sovereignty has been removed from us by an act of High Treason.
However this situation will undoubtedly gladden the hearts of all LibLabCon adherents as this is precisely what Sir Arnold Toynbee said was the objective of the Fabians Socialists in 1932 in Copenhagen. He is reported to have said:"If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States.... The surest sign... that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord...at every step forward which we take...that the sacred principle of local sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted.
It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.".
In order to achieve the intended end he went to say "I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And at all times we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be... ostracised and discredited.". It is also High Treason.
Therefore it would seem to me that in all honesty the Fabian Society and the LibLabCon Pro-EU traitors should now be cheering from the rooftops the final achievement of Sir Arnold's stated aims.
What a scoop for The Daily Express to have a front page spread
"THE QUEEN ABDICATED ALL OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN 1972. BRITAIN NO LONGER SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT OR SELF-GOVERNING".
However I suspect LibLabCon deceit long ingrained in their activities will prevent such an admission that they are the ones who engineered the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy and, it would seem, with the tacit agreement of Elizabeth Windsor a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II.
With thanks to David Bourne, scholar and patriot
HatTip Defender
Number7 right to bear arms for protection.
ReplyDeleteWe had more rights then than now.
Modern History Sourcebook:
The Bill of Rights, 1689
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the said late King James II having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal, and diverse principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the lords spiritual and temporal, being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque Ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them, as were of right to be sent to parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January, in this year 1689, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws, and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which letters elections have been accordingly made.
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being new assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done), for the vindication and assertion of their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
1. That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament is illegal.
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with the laws, or the execution of law by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
3. That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.
4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretense of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
11. That jurors ought to be duly impaneled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently.
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties....
Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and from all other attempt upon their religion, rights, and liberties:
The said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of England, France, and Ireland....
Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according
....
as allowed by law is added on. not in the original. all the original said was a right to bear arms to protestents it mentioned nothing about the law saying. He was the law for Gods sake nore did it mention conditions.
looks to me like the rats at westminster have been tampering with what they assumed we had no idea about.
This bill facinated me at school.
The original also mentioned that no foreign prince or power could rule England.
I guess this had to be changed to fit the marxist eu state power.
HOW I HATE THESE POLITICIANS AT WESTMINSTER TO HELL AND DAMNATION WITH THE LOT OF THEM.
THIS SAXON HAS HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH!