May 09, 2010

THE 2010 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION SHAMBLES

Of all theatrical stage productions the English stage has always excelled at 'farce'. It is a very English concept not generally appreciated or understood elsewhere in the world but it suits us due to our particular and perhaps peculiar sense of irony.  Now it seems that in the interest of the 'cake and circuses' principle of mass delusion the theatrical tradition of 'farce' has been adopted by the political establishment, for how else could one describe the 2010 general election?  

The predictable outcome of the election has without doubt highlighted the farcical position of our now unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate position of Parliament. The treasonous Parliament Act 1911 removed the supremacy of the House of Lords which resulted in the removal of  one of the three balancing powers of Parliament, and the treasonous European Communities Act 1972 removed the supremacy of the Crown thus removing another which left only one, the House of Commons, now an elected dictatorship which has continued pretending that nothing has changed, but of course in reality everything has changed. With the constitutional structure of Parliament abandoned by an aspiring political class elite, aided and abetted by the Crown and the House of Lords, now dysfunctional by design, Parliament has for many years been playing out a game bereft of rules and accountability, a game requiring its players to be particularly skilled in deviousness and duplicity, skills in which  the present participants are not adept, and so the cloak of their deceit has become threadbare before the public gaze.

Parliament, having abandoned the Constitution and with it the very foundations of its establishment and institution, has abandoned its sworn obligation to represent and uphold the political aspiration of the British people and has removed its allegiance and accountability to that of a foreign power. It is widely accepted that no man can serve two masters, thus political confusion reigns as so graphically demonstrated and illustrated in this farce of a general election. 

Although by and large the mass is still bathing in the light of innocence and incredulity, promoted by a politicised media, anyone with a small understanding of party politics would have anticipated or even predicted this outcome. It follows therefore that the political elite did also, and with this regard one must be mindful of the old maxim that nothing in politics occurs by accident. We must therefore alert ourselves to the implications of a possible reason behind it. Perhaps we have already seen it, couched and disguised in the suggestions of inter party negotiations, an innocent looking platform to further the covert LibLabCon Alliance, for despite the posturing and pontificating over individual party principles, at the end of the day all three parties are subordinate to the direction and will of a foreign government  and from which there can be no meaningful deviation. One must also be wary of suggestions for electoral reform for there can be no doubt that the politicians would seize upon any such move to further entrench their dictatorial position.

It is interesting, albeit scandalous how the media has played down and even distorted, backed by seemingly conditioned constitutional experts, the true constitutional role of the Monarch who is the official Governor of the nation, the government being no more than a delegated authority subordinate to the Crown and so to the British people. According to our laws only the Monarch can mount and dissolve a Parliament and appoint a Prime Minister on the people's behalf. That which is currently unfolding is further proof that the tail now waggeth the dog, underlined by spurious claims that it would be unconstitutional for the Governor of the nation to intervene and take hold of the situation in the interest of the nation's political stability. Spurious because constitutionally that is the role of the Monarch, upheld by the powers vested in the Monarch by the people at the time of the coronation.  Claiming that, by convention, the Monarch may no longer exercise those powers is to denounce the very power of the people themselves, for convention has no force in law what so ever. One cannot overlook however the fact that the British people have been coerced, indeed regularly forced, into using foreign measurements and Englishmen made common criminals for refusing so to do. This, together with the persecution of Christians and the suppression of free speech, the political establishment has denounced the Queen's coronation oath and so put her present legitimacy as constitutional monarch to question. 

In the confusion and ineptitude of prevailing party policies the electorate turned out in strength simply to ensure a change of government, as they so did in 1997 when the Conservative Party had similarly outstayed its welcome. In this resolve of national expediency it clearly was not an election for the smaller parties, with the exception of the Green Party in one constituency where Caroline Lucas, leader of the party took the seat, an uncommon instance of expressed party conviction riding with the universal desire for change. But what options for possible change is available to this tripartite coalition of fetid traitors all openly committed to the continued denunciation of the people's lawful right to enjoy sovereign independence and free political determination? As long as the politicians can, with the help of the politicised media, ensure that treason remains the word that dare not speak its name, there will be no hope of remedy and reformation. Meanwhile, we have a hung Parliament, which doubtless will afford these thoroughly discredited and disgraced politicians time to find ways to guard each others backs and to regroup behind a face-saving facade of rhetoric, accusations and claims of innocence. When reflecting on a hung Parliament one is tempted to wonder if the City of Westminster has sufficient lamp posts to accommodate them all, for according to our law, such is the penalty for treason. 

Bob LomasThe Magna Carta Society.

My thanks for this piece go to John (for sending it to me), and to Bob Lomas, (the author) for allowing me to post it here.

CR. 

8 comments:

James Higham said...

As long as the politicians can, with the help of the politicised media, ensure that treason remains the word that dare not speak its name, there will be no hope of remedy and reformation.

Aye, Cap'n - ne'er a truer few words were spoken.

Indyanhat said...

Wonderful piece Cap'n and a timely reminder, I have just posted a piece myself which echoes this in many ways , so I would like to put a link to this piece as an addendum if you don't mind, I will post it now please get back to me if you wish me to remove it for any reason.
I am aware that as a newbie here in the blogosphere there are not many that come through my way but for those that do I would like them to see this and let others know. It is my dearest wish that we change the way it all is but I would hesitate to see needless blood be shed by the innocents at the behest of the PTB!!!

verification 'press', and yes its apt for the press should be telling the people ALL of this NOW!!

Barry the Jackal said...

Is the 'Magna Carta Society' the same as, or connected to, the 'Magna Carta Party' who stood in the election? They had a candidate in my constituency, but I couldn't find anything on their views...

Captain Ranty said...

Agree 100% James.

Captain Ranty said...

Indy,

No problemo. Spread the word!

CR

Captain Ranty said...

Barry,

I know not. (I will ask though).

The MCS have now kindly included me in their mailing list. I am in learning mode and will blog on this as soon as I am up to speed.

CR.

lawful said...

re the Magna Carta Society, here is a short history.

Formed by Bob Lomas in (IIRC) 1997 to research constitutional law.

Drawing on a research paper on the RKBA by John Hurst sent a delegation including John Bingley to the House of Commons library to obtain the full text of the Declaration and Bill of Rights as decribed in John B's video previously posted.

Supported a Judicial Review and appeal on the RKBA by Mike Burke.(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/923.html&query=ex+and+parte+and+burke+and+1999&method=boolean )

Published a research paper. Some would say that the society was infiltrated by one G. L-W. at this time(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/923.html&query=ex+and+parte+and+burke+and+1999&method=boolean )


Petitioned all MP's and Lords not to support any Act giving effect to the Nice Treaty.


Provided evidence to and petitioned the Barons Committe that was formed as a result. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321462/Peers-use-Magna-Carta-to-oppose-EU-charter.html )

When the Nice Treaty was ratified the requirements of Chapter 61 of Magna Carta were satified and transfer of alleigance became lawful.

Regards, John Hurst.

drabzz said...

Excellent!