Jump to content

THE FINAL TRUMP OF THE BRITISH OVER AMERICA


Recommended Posts

Just in case the opening page is confusing this is the article:-

 

THE FINAL TRUMP OF THE BRITISH OVER AMERICA ?

CLOSER FINANCIAL AND REGULATORY TIES SEALING OUR COUNTRIES AS ONE

 

By

Joan M. Veon

 

The Women?s International Media Group, Inc.

www.womensgroup.org

Unlike the 17th Century battles fought on American soil to give us our independence from Great Britain, the final battle of brilliant maneuvers and institutions began in 1903 to delicately orchestrate the gradual reintegration of the United States with Great Britain. The military genius of the plan would be for American armies to unite with Britain in the name of world peace; the common enemy being, WWI, WWII, and the war on terrorism. The second wave would be on an international level to bring order to a disorderly global market while merging financial and regulatory authorities. It was the money of one man that started the ball rolling.

 

Cecil John Rhodes, a British aristocrat who died in 1902, funded the merger by leaving his gold and diamond fortune as a means to bring America back under British rule, believing the British was the finest race in the world. Those agreeing with his mission included many wealthy American industrialists who, in 1903, pledged allegiance to the British Crown when they founded the Pilgrim Society. This powerful society still meets today as a secret membership. If you listen to the words of our politicians, such as New York Senator Charles Schumer and former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer you can hear their approval of anything British for America.

 

It is the men of the Pilgrim Society who determined the best way to re-unite the countries was to get America to come in on the side of the British during WWI, continuing through with World War II. Now the British have come to our aid with the war on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

 

Rhode?s fortune also helped to fund the creation of the Royal Institute for International Affairs-RIIA in England, which is a key think-tank creating ideas and procedures in how best to merge our countries. The US counterpart is our Council on Foreign Relations. It was the Scottish industrialist turned American, Andrew Carnegie, who endowed America with its library system in his belief it would be good to re-unite the two countries into the ?British-American Union.?

 

The British then took a brilliant step by passing the Statute of Westminster in 1931 in which the UK would establish legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of their empire and the mother country. As a result the Commonwealth was birthed. Between 1946 and 1989 Britain gave ?independence? to 41 of its colonies.

 

But it was not enough for Britain to have the Commonwealth; they had to create an international system where they could outvote everyone else! The idea of the League of Nations came first through President Woodrow Wilson after World War I. Our then wise Congress swore its allegiance to the United States Constitution thereby preventing ratification. However, after World War II, the British idea of a United Nations was birthed as a means to end to all wars and to serve as the guardian of world peace.

 

Each time a British colony gained independence, they were given a vote at the United Nations and at the various UN agencies, commissions and organs. While the United States receives one vote at the United Nations, the Commonwealth receives 54. While the US receives one vote at the World Trade, the Commonwealth receives 46, and so forth. This type of imbalance is also seen at the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. In other words, the British run the world through the international level that they set up!

 

That brings us to this hemisphere and the 14 year old North American Free Trade Agreement. Eventually all the countries of this hemisphere will be connected in a free trade zone like that of the European Union. Ours is called the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA.

 

With regard to NAFTA, Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The proper title of the queen is, ?Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.? I think the question should be asked, ?Does the Queen of Canada become the Queen of the United States?? As such when you consider the FTAA, there are 13 commonwealth countries in this hemisphere which means we are outvoted in our own hemisphere!

 

With regard to disorderly markets and a global financial crisis, if one will just look at the number of banks closely involved, they are all inter-related, many of them British owned and if they had continued to buy each others mortgage paper, we would not have had a problem. As I see it, there is no problem at all; there is a situation to create chaos so the problem can be solved according to the pre-determined plan to reemerge our countries. In many ways, the military is already merged. The structure of our congress is no longer the two sided republicans and democrats as both sides have the same global philosophy. Now the international bankers, who run the Treasury, have signed an agreement with the British to merge our Treasury Department and the SEC with theirs. This is NOT being addressed at the hearings between Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and our congress at the respective House and Senate committees.

 

This is a diabolical stealth move to use the global financial system as a way to merge the finances of our two countries with no public understanding of what is really happening. According to the 3/31/08 Financial Times, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. president George Bush have agreed to ?step up cooperation over the crisis in financial markets by setting up a UK-US working group that will develop proposals to monitor and regulate the banking system.?

 

Thus far the new working group will be comprised of senior treasury and regulatory figures from London and Washington. It is reported they are working on a system of ?individually tailored international supervision for leading banks and financial institutions involved with cross-border activity?. While other details will be confirmed next week at the IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting, it is recognized that this new body will meet ?fairly intensely, sharing information, and over time, pushing through the kind of regulatory action that needs to be taken. It will also seek to improve day-to-day cooperation between regulators in the US and UK.?

 

The British have overturned the outcome of the War of 1812. British accents have become common on our TVs and radios. There is an increase in movies about the British monarchs. The British outvote the U.S. on all international levels. Powerful groups comprised of key CEO?s, economists, and politicians, such as the Pilgrim Society, the RIIA and the Council on Foreign Relations are working to reintegrate America under British rule. Our military and intelligence agencies now work very closely with one another, and now our financial and regulatory system is being merged through the UK-US working group. And I say to you, not one shot was fired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now, see if that was true, the first thing the "british" government would do is start Taxing the US... since this is not happening...it must be "poppycock" (I've always wanted to use that word, now that Im a member of "the finest race in the world" I feel my british internationa accent becoming "rampant")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stronger Europe ........without us in it (politically not geographically before the carping starts!!) would suit me! :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely the opposite Kyje: and you've given your motivation away, which is clearly - a desire for a super-nationalist State (the EU), rather than an aspiration for global cohesion. :roll: What is required is a leap beyond the myopic, to the reformation of sustainable global democratic institutions, to harness the existing global economic reality. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I am all for a European State then after that a United States of the World, A democratically elected World Government, Unlike you I am not afraid of democracy or being a minority view in a democracy which is why you are afraid of the E.U. You are afraid that all those Continentals will out vote you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, unlike the USA, the European "Superstate" now being stealthily manufactured is anything but a democracy. It is more akin to the USSR with the unelected Commissioners ("Kommissars") wielding all the power and the elected parliament being actually toothless. As for our own "Mother of Parliaments", this is being reduced to a mere regional talking shop with no power to stop or amend any of the Directives coming from our new masters in Brussels. We need to escape from this nightmare before it's too late. :onfire: :onfire: :onfire: :onfire:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremely naive of you Kije: Democracy?! :( That could of course change, with our reliance on Russian gas and oil; or could entice the US to use us to physically secure it - ensuring WW3. :o And you still havn't justified the fact that WE are a net contributor to this farce? :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are the one that is naive, the EU is democratic, The Parliament can veto the Council of Ministers as you well know but choose to ignore, the charge sticks you are afraid of being a minority in a European democracy.you only like democracy to to a point. That point being welcome if you agree with me but get the hell out if you don't. Do yourself a favor stop taking the Daily Mail line,GET more Democratic open your eyes. what is actually wrong with a European Democracy will it be that much different than now after all we live in a democracy now. No offense but you sound like a person that mourned the loss of Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems your the one in denial: totally ignoring my point about the undemocratic nature of the EU Constitution fiasco and subsequent Lisbon Treaty implimentation by stealth - signed by the PMs of each Nation; NOT by the EU Parliament. :roll: And you still can't explain - how a club that we are a net contributor to, is of benefit to us? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the EU has elections for its MEPs and could therefore be described as a democracy(11 June 2009 are the next ones in the UK, guess the turnut will be about 40%) most voters feel they have no control of what goes on, nor do they feel their MEPs do either...in fact most think, rightly in many cases, that their MEPs are on a gravy train. The EU has, alas, become a bureaucratic nightmare that is far too remote from the people...you and I, that it is meant to serve. What started out as a great idea has been wrecked by people who put their own narrow self interest and obsession with power, before public service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like Lt.Kije has got himself a first class sleeper on the EU gravy train and is, therefore, not able or willing to listen to any critisism of our masters. Sad. :onfire: :onfire:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisbon Treaty by stealth I think not, Right wing press crap were you out protesting when they said are bananas were to straight, I bet you believed that little gem as well, I am a professed democrat something you seem to be not. I think I had a point when I said you only like democracy as long as people take your point of view. Or is it you what to protect the Anglo Saxon blood line from being watered down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a democracy the wishes of the majority of the people are followed. In the EU the wishes of the majority of the people are ignored when they don't match the wishes of the Kommisars. :x:x:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a democracy the wishes of the majority of the people are followed. In the EU the wishes of the majority of the people are ignored when they don't match the wishes of the Kommisars.
Crap

 

If that was true Maggie Thatcher would have never have come to power, More people in every election she stood in voted agaist her, every government she ran was a minority one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every British Government since 1906 has been elected by a minority of the electorate. The difference is that the electorate in Britain has (until now) been given a chance at intervals not exceeding 5 years to get rid of the government if they didn't like what they were doing. No such opportunity to get rid of the unelected Kommisars of the EU who actually make all the decisions. Shove that "crap" in your pipe and smoke it Lt.Kije. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...