PUTTING RAIN BACK IN THE SKY

"Putting rain back in the Sky"

One of the greatest failings of Humankind in Great Britain today, is the way that, 'Yesterday', is always judged by the 'standards' of, 'Today'.

And, this has always resulted in great injustice.

Here are two stark vivid examples of this travesty:

The first:

The Nuremberg Tribunal Trials.

Virtually every NAZI war criminal tried at the Nuremberg Tribunal for horrific crimes, pleaded as their defence, that they were only obeying the orders of a superior.

But, the Tribunal judges, corruptly, would not accept this defence. They, ruled that every defendant, must be 'individually responsible', for one’s own actions.

These judges, "Put rain back in the Sky".

Because, they completely ignored all that had happened in NAZI Germany, from the very moment that, ADOLF HITLER, became 'Chancellor of Germany' in 1933; thru, to the end of World War II, in 1945.

 

HITLER, created the law in Germany known as, the, "FuhrerPrinzip"; (The Leadership Principle); this law, first, applicable to the Military, but, later, during World War II, became applicable to everyone in Germany; required that every German citizen, must obey the order of a superior officer or, a superior official administrator, under the pain of imprisonment, and, even death; if one refused.

The, "FuhrerPrinzip", was an established fact in, German law. And, it, was, LAW. Yet, the judges in the Nuremberg Tribunal, would not 'recognise; this.

 

They,

 "Put rain back in the Sky".

Every war criminal pleading the defence of "FuhrerPrinzip" spoke the absolute truth. But, the 'Judges' corruptly ignored that, “LAW” for expediency. The, 'Law of the Victor'  of World War II; thereby, demanding, that the 'Vanquished' had no right of claim to the protection of, LAW.

Every defendant at Nuremberg was found 'Guilty' of the crimes for which they were tried. They were either imprisoned for very many years, or, they were executed; hung, by the neck, until dead.

It was the greatest travesty of the corruption of, 'LAW' and 'JUSTICE’, of this Century.

The ‘Holocaust’ and the horrific crimes of Nazi Germany deserved the severest punishment; but, every defendant at the, Nuremberg Tribunals, deserved a fair trial. They did not get that ‘fair trial’, because, the ‘corrupt’ Judges, “Put rain back in the Sky”.

The second example:

The 'Child Sex Abuse' hysteria prevailing in Great Britain today.
In this wild hysterical furore, escalating, in more and more allegations of, 'child sexual abuse', being revealed every day, there is the demand being made by Government, many politicians, and, the 'Child Protection Agencies', for an 'Inquiry' to be set up, in order to investigate, "The Culture of the BBC". Allegations, are being made, every day, asserting that, BBC stars, deejays, and celebrity personalities, abused young children on the premises of the BBC. It is not the 'Culture of the BBC' that, requires, to be investigated. What, needs to be understood, is the 'culture' prevailing throughout the entire country, at that time:

 

To, judge, "The Culture of the 1960's thru, to the early, 1970's" by the standards of today, is both corrupt and ridiculous. In order to understand the, accusations that are being made today, to, judge, these, allegations, completely ignoring the 'national culture' that was in existence in the country when these 'asserted' child abuses took place; is to completely deny, all that happened in this period, as though, it had never taken place at all.

 

It, is, "Putting rain back in the Sky".

 

The 1960's brought about the most massive explosion of sexual freedom the country had ever seen, in my lifetime. All the censorship of sex and sexuality, all the repressions of censorship, sex, sexual experimentation, and, sexual exploration, of both Church and State; were all swept away. Providing the greatest era of SEXUAL FREEDOM, the country had ever seen.

 

Women had the 'pill' which enabled them to experiment and enjoy their sexuality without the fear of pregnancy; The 'mini-skirt' was born, allowing young girls and women to display their legs, high up, almost to their 'bare bum'; where, their knickers, were frequently 'on show', when they walked in the street or danced in the disco's. Grown up adult women were even whipping off their 'erotically’ charged 'damp panties' , throwing them at TOM JONES as he sang and performed. Commercial radio with the, 'pirates' , had smashed the previous radio monopoly of the BBC; and, the radio 'deejay' and the 'pop music artists and groups' , became big star attractions, virtually overnight.

Young girls, throughout the Kingdom, embraced this, FREEDOM; and, they joined in. Every pop concert attracted hordes of sexually charged 'horny' young girls 'screaming their heads off' as they watched these artists perform. Anyone who witnessed these young girls at a, “Beatles Concert", could not mistake the 'sexuality' there involved. Young girls became 'fame chasers' throwing themselves at the pop star, pop groups, deejays, and celebrities, exploring, their sexuality; and, even, in some cases, 'notching up conquests on their bedposts', in competition, for sexual favours received.

There was, SEX and SEXUAL FREEDOM, everywhere. A, great, SEXUAL EXPLOSION, for all ages and classes; and, the young girls, were affected as well.

 

EXAMPLE: Personal experience:

 

From late 1965 thru to May of 1976 I served as the promotions manager of two commercial radio stations: Pirate, Radio London, and, Capital Radio. During this time I was responsible for all publicity activities of these companies, outside of the actual broadcasting studios. I mounted concerts, pop shows and disco's all over the catchment area, of Greater London. Daily, I was in the thick of, showbiz, and, the pop groups, pop stars, and the pop music industry. Throughout the whole of this period, although, I witnessed, thousands of young girls and the celebrities; I never once saw any young girl being sexually abused. I, frequently, saw them being 'fondled', often, seeing their 'boobs' being touched; but, always with their complicity, or, at their consent. I also frequently witnessed many of these young girls, competing with each other, to gain points, for the 'sexual conquests' they had achieved.

 

On one occasion, which I recall vividly, I had to accompany a famous American pop group to a BBC studio. They had a 'hit record' out at that time; and, promoting, that record, they were scheduled to perform at the BBC. On arrival at the BBC, the schedule indicated that they were not required immediately, so I left these boys in the dressing room and went out to see the studio set up. Nearing the time when they were required, I returned to the dressing room to alert them to get ready. The dressing room was full of young girls, there was smooching and groping, being performed, by all. And, the drummer was missing. Frantically, I searched the building for this drummer; and, I eventually found him in a 'toilet cubicle' with three girls. I screamed at him to get back to the dressing room, and as he sheepishly left; the three girls emerged, 'laughing their heads off', from the toilet cubicle. Wholly, ignoring me, standing there, they then each in turn, claimed that they had won the competition, describing in detail, what they had sexually done to the boy, and, what, sexually, he had done to them. The details described, ranged from the showing and touching of 'boobs', all the way thru a sexual agenda, culminating, in anal sex.

These girls were not whores or slags, or, of the sex industry. They were ordinary young girls, thoroughly enjoying their sexuality, and, experimenting, with, sex. I made no attempt to report them or to lecture them. I merely 'laughed with them', recognizing fully, that it was the 'culture', of that time.

In judging today, anything that happened 'sexually' then; is to ignore the 'culture' of that time. It is,

 

 "Putting rain back in the Sky".

 Gordonj

 

CORRUPTION?

FIFA, SEBB BLATTER, and CORRUPTION...

FIFA Ethics Committee bans both SEBB BLATTER and MICHEL PLATINI for eight years; but fails to produce one word of actual 'evidence' against them.

The Committee merely responds to the "Hate Blatter" campaign engineered specifically by the British who failed in their "World Cup" bid; and want revenge; and the Americans, who consistently allege, CORRUPTION. But, produce no evidence at all.

 

CORRUPTION

When I hear and witness an American State Prosecutor alleging CORRUPTION; I practically vomit in contempt.

 

It was the rotten CORRUPTION of the entire American Government and Judicial Administration: Government, Judiciary, the trial judge, the Supreme Court Judges, the FBI, and the Security Services; that conspired and falsely and corruptly charged ETHEL and JULIUS ROSENBERG of giving the 'atom bomb secrets' to Russia; and, putting them to death in the electric chair.

That's real, CORRUPTION;

Knowingly and calculatingly, murdering two innocent people, who had nothing to do with the charges levelled against them, at all. The entire evidence against them was false, and it was wholly fabricated by the American Government and the Security Service. Even the President of the United States was a willing participant to this, CORRUPTION.

AMERICA put ETHEL and JULIUS ROSENBERG to death; to satisfy the corrupt and wicked anti-communist 'witch hunts' that hysterically prevailed in the country at that time.

ETHEL and JULIUS were communists, and they did spy for Russia. But, they were both specifically instructed by MOSCOW to discontinue all spying activity; long before the 'incidents' took place for which they were charged. They had no participation in those 'alleged incidents' at all. The evidence, presented during their trial alleging that ETHEL ROSENBERG had typed up the 'secrets of the atom bomb' on a table in a room in her house; was all false. And, the Security Services and the Government - knew that it was false - because, they had entirely fabricated that 'evidence' in every detail.

 

David Greenglass, ETHEL ROSENBERG's, own brother, who worked in the 'Los Alamos' Nuclear Research Establishment where the atom bomb was being produced; had been caught spying; and, the Security Services put pressure on him, in order for him, to implicate the ROSENBERGS. It was his false testimony that actually convicted them both and sentenced them to die in the electric chair. That ‘incident’, “typing up the atom bomb secrets”, actually never took place at all; it was the entire ‘fiction’ of David Greenglass, and, the Security Service.

 

CORRUPTION of the highest degree;

MURDERING TWO INNOCENT PEOPLE; PUTTING THEM TO DEATH IN THE MOST HORRIFIC WAY; VIRTUALLY FRYING THEM, IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR.

Thus, and thereby, let no American prosecutor ever point the finger at anyone, alleging, CORRUPTION, again.

 

"THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED"

Glorious Revolution and, “The Said Rights Claimed”

My letter to KEITH PORTEOUS WOOD of the Secularist Society.

 

Congrats re the banning of prayers at Council Meetings.

I agree, that both prayers in Parliament, and also in the ‘imposition’ in schools, should also be banned in LAW.

 

For your immediate attention and interest and in respect to The Speaker, JOHN BERCOW’s pronouncement that prayers will still be said in Parliament, because Parliament is protected by the “Bill of Rights 1689”,

 

From all experience in this country, my country, sad to say, that it would appear that I am practically the only one in the country that has read and researched the period of “The Glorious Revolution” correctly. Because the ‘evidence’ is abundantly clear that hardly anyone has interpreted the “Bill of Rights 1689” correctly at all.

 

The entire British Educational curriculum and establishment has abysmally failed to teach this correctly. The majority of the People of the country know nothing of Parliaments “Supremacy” and the way that they are being governed today.

 

Parliament and the Courts (Judiciary) have been misinterpreting the “Bill of Rights 1689” for more than 300 years. And, they both continue to misinterpret it, even today.

 

You can ask at random thousands of people in the streets and ask them to list the three principal instruments by which they are governed; and, more than 90 per cent would not know. Ask them to tell you about “Article 9”; and they would be, bewildered.

 

Then ask them to tell you about “The Said Rights Claimed” and they would stand open mouthed before you not having a clue. Even Parliament and the Judiciary know nothing of this “Statute” in the Bill.

 

Parliament claims its lawful validity for its “Supremacy” relying upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads:

 

“The Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”

 

And. both Parliament and the Judiciary has interpreted that wording as though it was a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation requiring no other considerations at all. That is why the Judiciary has always denied the testing, questioning or the challenging of Parliament, in their Courts.

 

But the correct interpretation of “Article 9” and, the entire “Bill of Rights 1689”; proves that “Article 9” is not a ‘stand-alone’ Statute at all’.

Parliaments ‘enactment of “Article 9”, (And all the other, ‘Premises’, of that Bill), are wholly dependent upon the conditions set out in another paragraph of that same Bill: i.e. the paragraph: “The Said Rights Claimed”

 

And, this reads as follows:

 

“The said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

This makes it abundantly clear that as a ‘precedent’ in English Law, that, Parliaments “Supremacy”, legally afforded to Parliament by “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, is only applicable, in LAW; providing Parliament does not ‘prejudice’ the People. Whenever Parliament does ‘prejudice’ the People; the “Supremacy” of Parliament, has no lawful validity at all.

 

So, when The Speaker, JOHN BERCOW MP or any other Member of Parliament asserts that “Prayers will still be conducted in Parliament” because Parliament is protected by the “Bill of Rights 1689”; anyone can challenge that assertion, in LAW, relying on “The Said Rights Claimed”.

If it can be shown and proved in a Court of LAW that ‘prayers said in Parliament’ does ‘prejudice the People’; the Courts will have no alternative but to rule that ‘prayers said in Parliament', must cease.

Hardly any of the British People are aware; that, even if we do not have a “written constitution” or a proper “Bill of Rights”; and, even if we have no access to LAW to challenge Parliament in a “Supreme Court” of LAW; the British are protected against the ‘prejudice’ and the ‘abuses’ of Parliament; by, “The Said Rights Claimed”

This, has never ever been taught in our schools.

People will never be able to participate in a DEMOCRACY correctly, unless they ‘participate’ twenty four hours of each day; and, unless they are aware of the precise manner by which they are governed. The British have not the slightest conception as to how they are governed. That is why today we are governed by a wholly illegal coalition government; that was not elected by the People, at all. The People’s vote in the General Election of 2010 verified that there should be a ‘Conservative led Minority Government’; but the leaders of the Political party’s elected to Parliament in that election did not like that result. So, they illegally ‘ignored’ the People’s vote; and, they then conspired with each other to foist upon this nation, this coalition government. In ‘ignoring’ the People’s vote in this way, they corruptly, ‘prejudiced’ the People. Which, was wholly prohibited in ‘LAW’ by “The Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/“The Said Rights Claimed”.

The British Parliament though elected by The People; is not a Peoples Parliament.

Parliament is dominated entirely by the Political Party’s; and, the political ‘diktat’ of those parties.

The only way this will ever change, in order to create a truly, ”Peoples Parliament”; is when the entire population of the country recognizes and respects “The Said Rights Claimed”. When that is done, the Offices, Procedures and Practises of the WHIPS in Parliament, (that does ‘prejudice’ the People), will be challenged in LAW; and, will then be abolished. Whereby, every vote taken in Parliament thereafter, would become a ‘free vote’.

Sincerely, Gordonj

PS. Read my book “DEMOCRACY”:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

SACK HILLARY BENN

JEREMY CORBYN has no alternative now; he must sack his Cabinet Shadow Foreign Secretary HILLARY BENN; and, this is the reason why:

I can never recall, even one instance, where a Member of the front bench of the Labour Party, an actual Shadow, Foreign Secretary; has actually ‘campaigned’ to persuade all Members of his own political parliamentary party, to vote for a TORY party political policy motion, that, in just a matter of only a few minutes away, would be called for the vote. Especially, when that motion, and, that TORY policy, is of such a serious nature, in respect to the waging of war.

HILLARY BENN, last night, had the same, 'FREE VOTE', option in that debate and vote, as every other Member of the, Labour Parliamentary Party. JEREMY CORBYN had provided each of them with the 'individual' option of the 'FREE VOTE'; in the name and the cause of, Democracy.

This provided every Member of that, Labour Parliamentary Party, with the 'individual' option to vote in that debate according to his or her 'own conscience' and as 'influenced' by the 'constituents' they represented. 

They each had the right to vote as an 'individual' when the vote was taken.

But, none of them had the right to actively campaign, FROM THE FRONT BENCH, OF THE LABOUR PARTY, to 'persuade' all Members of their own political party to, 'vote for', that TORY motion.

He had the absolute right to vote his own opinion.
He had no right whatsoever to 'persuade others' on how they should vote.

This was the clear arrogant intent of HILLARY BENN to sabotage and flout, JEREMY CORBYN, and, his leadership of the Labour Party.

This 'arrogance' of HILLARY BENN should not be tolerated. HE HAS TO GO.

I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing, when this travesty took place.

Gordonj 

CORBYN, Democracy; CAMERON, The, Totalitarian Regime....

JERMY CORBYN entirely fulfilling his leadership election promise to try and create a new way of doing politics and establishing a more true democracy; provides a 'FREE VOTE' for all Labour Members of Parliament in respect of the vote taking place today regarding the 'bombing' of the 'Islamic State' in Syria.

Yet, DAVID CAMERON, the totalitarian dictator, denies all Conservative Members of parliament a 'FREE VOTE'. He is determined to create his own law in exactly the same way as ADOLF HITLER did, in Nazi Germany. HITLER presented his 'Enabling Act' to the German 'Reichstag', (Parliament), which specifically allowed HITLER to create his own laws. And, this Act was passed by that democratic parliament, by 441 votes for ‘Yes’ and only 94 votes for ‘No’. Therefore and thereby, HITLER, legally, had every right, to create his own laws.

But, CAMERON's "enabling act'; the, "WHIPS, in Parliament"; has no legality at all.
The WHIPS in parliament flout and breach the 'precedent of law' that is established and set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

Therefore, if the TORY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT today, under the influence of the WHIPS, give DAVID CAMERON, a majority vote, resulting in the 'bombing' of Syria;

That vote will be wholly illegal and unlawful and it will be wholly eligible for challenge in law.

In order for the 'bombing' of Syria vote in parliament to be perfectly lawful; all Members of Parliament must be afforded the right of the, FREE VOTE. A 'Whipped' vote in parliament has no legality at all.

The WHIPS in instructing Members of Parliament on how they must vote; overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' placed upon those Members, by the Constituents. This thereby creates the, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE"

Yet the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed" specifically instructs parliament, that when parliament 'enacts' or applies any of the "PREMISES" of that Bill; that, nothing, "OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

Here is the 'evidence' of that paragraph, in that Bill,
 

“The Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular

The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that

noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the

Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in

any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

 THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.


Gordonj