Saturday, 21 July 2012

Gmos cause disease, queen elizabeth dictator

Queen Elizabeth is a dictator, iron fisted unelected  and an autocrat who uses her thugs to crack down on student protestors and lock them up in prison.  Queen Elizabeth wields all the power which is why less than 5% of people watch her, yet she is on every tv channel whenever she blows a fart or has a wedding.  She portrays the idea that she is a nothing with no power, however she is the sovereign of the UK and the british empire.

Even the army is called Her Royal Majesty's Navy/army etc.  She has no passport, and has diplomatic immunity, and is above the law in practice.  She only publicly portrays the idea that she doesn't run things, but this is not the case.

The Queen can dismiss ministers (equivalent of US secretaries unilaterally) including the prime minister (equivalent to US President)

The Monarch can dismiss parliament if they pass a law she dislikes, she can unilaterally appoint a prime minister.  The Queen has the equivalent of executive orders, similar to that of the president of the US, called Royal Prerogative and she meets weekly with the prime minister and she controls the secret service of the UK.

Here are additional powers of the queen under royal prerogative:
-The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
-It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon and prorogue Parliament.(she could chose not to ever summon commons or the equivalent of the US house of representatives and basically it would end democracy and governor through royal prerogatives.  Or she could also prorogue = end a session of parliament indefinetly)
-She can stop any law, by just refusing to sign it as all laws require her signature.
-The common law holds that the Sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government), but not lawsuits against the monarch personally.  (the queen could shoot you dead tomorrow and is immune from prosecution)

Further the Queen is the world's largest land holder and has over a trillion dollars from the Crown Estate Treasury which in just 2007 alone produced 200 billion pounds in revenue or about 330 billion in income.  This doesn't account for the dozens of duchy estates that is under he control and power as well.

If you look at any of the above and it was any country from outside the "west" everyone would agree corrupt dictator.  Only because she controls the media is this little old nice queen idea in the head of people who watch too much tv. Yeah sure she helps some kid in Africa, but the media doesn't tell you about the kids who she murders and are found murdered on her property as reported by, foxnews,  The Queen was indicted by the Mohawk nation for murdering and raping children, but your media controlled by her will not report that, and that is why she won't step foot in Mohawk terrirtory.

Now you are not going to see the Queen with an Iron Fist on TV, bcause that is overt, she doesn't need to be an overt dictator, its not necessary because there are so many people who already believe she is not.  You think people in North Korea think King Jong Un, or Kim Jong IL were dictators, nope, they think they are just, fair, rulers and have little influence except ceremonial, except of course when they tell them.  That is 1-d thinking.

Still think Queens powers are symbolic despite all the statutes that show otherwise.  Explain this :

"Chris Bambery, from the revolutionary Scottish International Socialist Group, told Press TV that the Queen rarely uses her “immense power” over “the armed forces, the judiciary, the police, the secret services [and] all instruments of government.”

However, he said those powers are “there in case of emergency” as precedence shows including her veto of the Australian Labour Prime Minister in 1975 through her Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

“Well, I'll give you an example, not from Britain, but the Queen has directly dismissed an elected prime minister in Australia in 197[5] a Labor prime minister was dismissed by the Queen's agent the Governor General,” Bambery said in his interview with Press TV. "

That is the Queen dismissed the leader of Australia.  That is like saying the Queen has no power in America except on paper and she were to fire the president in 1975.

"According to Bambery, the incident underlined the fact that the Queen’s massive powers do not remain symbolic when she is not satisfied with the situation.

“And I think you have to say that she has those powers and in extreme situation like if a radical government was elected in this country, committed to taking over the wealth of the country I think you would see her employing those powers. And the military and secret service and so on would say they were acting because they are not responsible to parliament they are responsible to the queen,” Bambery said.

In otherwords, if the government does something she doesn't like she will use her army, secret service, etcetera to put them in their place.  So given that why would any politician attempt to have a spat with her when they know they would lose.  They can be fired by her.  In otherwords they are here employee.

“These are powers, which should be under the democratic control of the people; they should not be in the hands of one woman,” he added."

Queen = not democratic = dictator.  She's no different except she doesn't pound her chest, she is a so called velvet glove dictator.

Well I would point to the above to find what is wrong.  You really need read more than the last sentence of the article.  She is not democratic, not elected, she is a despot dictator, who controls the armies that should be under democratic control.  You would not against the army would you?  I know I wouldn't I'd do what she said, because I don't like being shot.

Now I am not saying Assad is good, but they are the same, they both rule from the barrel of a gun.  They are both dictators, and at least Assad is more valid because he had elections, even if it is  a sham election at least someone voted for him.  No one votes for the Queen and she fires prime ministers in OZ and closed parliament in Canada.

Anyhow, if I took a brainwashed view of Assad as the average Westerner takes of the Queen, it'd be impossible for you to prove any wrong doing of his, not because you couldn't show me dead women found at his palace, or him being indicted for murders and rapes or him dismissing prime ministers in lebanon (or australia ;) but because I'd choose not to believe it.  So if you decide to approach the subject with a closed mind that she cannot be a dictator just because I don't see her rolling money and on TV everyday or acting like Sasha Baren Cohen, then I can't help you.  If the Queen is just a figurehead with no powers, why not remove all her powers.

Not every government is against Assad, really just a handful of Western countries (US, Uk  France and basically the puppet states they control).  Ironically Iraq has not come out against them, Africa is not against them, Asia, South America, Central America, Mexico, India, China, Russia, East Europe.  The relaity is that often the Americans, Brits, and Francos try to portray themself as the entire world.  If those 3 agree on bombing Libya, then the world agrees on bombing Libya. if they say bomb syria, then the world is for boming Syria, even if Russia and China and all of africa and asia disagree.  The reality is that most countries have nothing to gain nor lose, and most countries are slightly pro Assad, but have nothing to gain by publicly supporting him and angering America, France and Britain.

I guess my point on Assad came across in a way I did not intend.  Lets just pretend Assad is a murderer and killed 3 people.  Well Queen Elizabeth and the Western leaders are like mass murdering rapists who've murdered 500 people each and torture their victims and eat their skeletons.  You are right, none of them are good.  My point is latter group is worse, way worse by far but even a murderer of 3 people is a scum bag too.

"I have yet to hear of an instance in the United States where the president ordered a massacre of ordinary American citizens. If the president was doing this on a regular basis, he would not be in power for long. Nixon couldn't even deny that he knew about the Watergate break-ins without losing the presidency. Elections in the West are a sham. Maybe so but if the leader loses the election he is out. No questions. He is out"

So for Assad to be popular people need to be in the streets professing their love of Assad.  Just like everyday I turn on my tv, I saw people throwing parties and professing en masse their love for George Bush and Obama.  In reality I see more anti Bush and anti Obama protest since they took office.  Besides the bought out media dismisses any pro assad rally as people being paid to support him like they claimed for the thousands who came and fought for Gaddafi and supported in the streets by the hundreds of thousands.

If you want to get into the technical and say you want a piece of paper document that says kill all people in this region/area with the president's name signed on it you will not find it, and the president's almost always deny any culpability in any compromising act anyways (and the fact that if such a document did exist it'd be obviously labelled classified which would make mere possession and distribution of it a criminal offence and a felony)  So even if I had it and flew to your house by helicopter, knocked on your door and placed it in your hand, and handed it to you, you could go to jail for it and so could I.  Politicians lie about every little thing, you think they are going to tell you truth on people who they murder and massacre?
Anyways, there is the ruby ridge massacre, there is the branch davidian massacre where the US government burned down a compound and murdered over a dozen innocent children.  There is the my lai massacre in vietnam, numerous massacres of innocent people.  And the countless and endless massacres against native americans from pioneer days right up until the end of the 1900s.
The reality is when dealing with a large organization there is a thing called plausible deniability.  There are so many people in the organization it become virtually impossible to pin a crime on any one beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even in the case of Hitler, not a single document exist where he specifically orders for the killing of jews in concentration camps.  And many holocaust deniers use this nugget of truth to attempt to say a ha no holocaust never happened.  But that is misleading.  It is also the reason why or part of the reason why when a very large organization does a crime they get off with fines when they should be in jail.

On the issue of GMOS, its not even disputed, when they start putting human genes in fish.  Let me take a step back here.  When I look back in my statement, I see there may have been a vagueness you misinterpreted.  I must remind myself that you have no knowledge of this topic, and it is probably overwhelming, and seems like bullshit to you.  In all honesty, seemed like bullshit to me when I first heard it, until I researched it myself.  That is why I said "look into", because I know your natural reaction as a person who watches main stream media who tells you that flouride is not poisioning you, that you will assume gmos are not bad either.  Not every single disease, but the majority of the ones we see a major increase in like infertility, cancers, alzhemiers, dementia, high blood pressure, autism, downs, etcetera.  Just google, gmos cause cancer.

In fact just google Monsanto Whistle blower, gmos cause disease

It is not my opinion, it comes from numerous scholary articles from professors and scientist way smarter than I am, there is even film on monsanto gmos, and gmos are sprayed with chemicals as well, its not just mixing genes.  and gmos damage human dna as well
"A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup's toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant's talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup."

Learn more:

You can even google for just scholarly articles, and have hundreds of published peer reviewed articles documenting the increase in diseases gmos cause.  If you choose not to believe then so be it, but then I will at least know for certain that you are not simply uninformed skeptic (which is not necessarily a bad things to ask questions and ask for proof) but simply someone who just doesn't want to accept the truth because it might compel you to do something and your probably lazy so you don't want to take any action so its easier to just deny and demand evidence and then find ways to say why that evidence is not good enough for you.

No comments:

Post a Comment