APPOINTED AND ANNOINTED

THEY THINK THEY ARE GOD

4/10/14 CAUSE GOD GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DO IT ?

David Cameron: 'Jesus invented the Big Society – I'm just continuing God's work'
Hours after the Prime Minister was forced to defend Maria Miller’s resignation over her expenses, he told religious leaders at an Easter reception in Downing Street: ‘The Bible tells us to bear one another’s burdens.’ The stressed-out Premier was also seen leaning against a pillar with his eyes shut as a soprano sang the – rather appropriate –  hymn ‘Ave Maria’. Cameron boasted: ‘Jesus invented the Big Society 2,000 years ago; I just want to see more of it. David Cameron has claimed divine inspiration was at work when it came to drafting a key concept for Conservative Party policy. The Prime Minister reportedly said he was simply doing God’s work when he launched the “Big Society” initiative of volunteering and civic responsibility. “Jesus invented the Big Society 2,000 years ago,” Mr Cameron said. “I just want to see more of it.”

 

The Note Book of an English Opium-Eater
Falsification of English History pg. 154

Our constitution was not a birth of a single instant, as they would represent it, but a gradual growth and development through a long tract of time. In particular the doctrine of the king's vicarious responsibility in the person of his ministers, which first gave a sane and salutary meaning to the doctrine of the king's personal irresponsibility ['The king can do no wrong'], arose undeniably between 1640 and 1648. This doctrine is the main pillar of our constitution, and perhaps the finest discovery that was ever made in the theory of government. Hitherto the doctrine that the King can do no wrong had been used not to protect the indispensable sanctity of the king's constitutional character, but to protect the wrong. Used in this way, it was a maxim of Oriental despotism, and fit only for a nation where law had no empire. Many of the illustrious patriots of the Great Parliament saw this; and felt the necessity of abolishing a maxim so fatal to the just liberties of the people.

ENLIGHTENED 
DESPOTISM

 

 

Enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent despotism or enlightened despotism) is a form of absolute monarchy or despotism in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment. Enlightened monarchs embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, especially its emphasis upon rationality, and applied them to their territories. They tended to allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to hold private property. Most fostered the arts, sciences, and education.

Enlightened absolutists' beliefs about royal power were often similar to those of absolute monarchs, in that many believed that they had the right to govern by birth and generally refused to grant constitutions, seeing even the most pro-monarchy ones as being an inherent check on their power.

The difference between an absolutist and an enlightened absolutist is based on a broad analysis of how far they embraced Enlightenment.

For example, although Empress Catherine II of Russia entirely rejected the concept of the social contract, she took up many ideas of the Enlightenment, being a great patron of the arts in Imperial Russia and incorporating many ideas of enlightened philosophers, especially Montesquieu, in her Nakaz, which was meant to revise Russian law. In effect, the monarchs ruled with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority. German historian Reinhold Koser described the spirit of enlightened absolutism by borrowing a phrase from the cameralist writer Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi (1717-1771), "Everything for the people, nothing by the people"^[1]. Implicit in this philosophy was that the sovereign knew the interests of his subjects better than they themselves; his responsibility to them thus precluded their political participation.
Voltaire was a prominent Enlightenment philosopher who felt enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance.
However, historians debate the actual implementation of enlightened absolutism. They distinguish between the "enlightenment" of the ruler personally, versus that of his or her regime. For example, Frederick II, "The Great," of Prussia was tutored in the ideas of the French Enlightenment in his youth, and maintained those ideas in his private life as an adult, but in many ways was unable or unwilling to effect enlightened reforms in practice.^[2] Others rulers like Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, the prime minister of Portugal, "used" their enlightenment not only to achieve reforms but also to enhance autocracy, crush opposition, suppress criticism, further colonial economic exploitation, and consolidate personal control and profit.[2]

England The Corn Laws which the farming industry imposed on the country in 1815 were not designed to save a tottering sector of the economy, but rather to preserve the abnormally high profits of the Napoleonic war-years, and to safeguard farmers from the consequences of their wartime euphoria, when farms had changed hands at the fanciest prices, loans and mortgages had been accepted on impossible terms.
[Eric Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution (1999), p. 175.]

Although England regulated prices of corn since the seventeenth century, the Corn Laws to which people in the nineteenth century refer originated in 1815. At the end of the French Wars that year Parliament passed legislation that stated that no foreign corn could be imported into Britain until domestic corn cost 80/- per quarter. The high price caused the cost of food to increase and consequently depressed the domestic market for manufactured goods because people spent the bulk of their earnings on food rather than commodities. The Corn Laws also caused great distress among the working classes in the towns. These people were unable to grow their own food and had to pay the high prices in order to stay alive. Since the vast majority of voters and Members of Parliament were landowners, the government was unwilling to reconsider the new legislation in order to help the economy, the poor or the manufacturers who laid off workers in times of restricted trade.

Immediately after the repeal of the Corn Laws Lord Russell became Prime Minister at the head of a Whig administration. During this first premiership (1846-1852), he helped pass legislation limiting working hours in factories in the 1847 Factory Act and was responsible for passing the Public Health Act of 1848. This ministry also ended restrictions on colonial trade by repealing the Navigation Acts in 1849.

The British would follow the earlier example of the Dutch, who pacified Indonesia with opium: the Dutch East India Company began shipping opium to Java in 1659, and by the middle of the next century, 100 tons were arriving every year, in the city of Batavia, alone. The opium addicts and the corrupt officials who collected bribes to allow smuggling, effectively became allies with the British in subverting China. Opium had a devastating effect on the Chinese military, and on the Chinese intelligensia. Although the Chinese had used opium as a medicine, there was no widespread addiction before the British arrived. The Portuguese had smuggled some opium to China. The first major shipment of opium, was arranged in 1781, by the Company's Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who described opium as a "pernicious'' commodity, "which the wisdom of the Government should carefully restrain from internal consumption.'' It was a financial disaster. The opium was brought to Canton, the only city where the Chinese allowed foreigners to trade. The Chinese showed little interest, so the ship left without selling its opium. The Company lost a quarter-of-a-million dollars. However, steady British smuggling paid off. By 1804, the revenues from opium sales to China, were sufficient to cover the cost of tea, imported from China. Between 1804 and 1806, $7 million were transferred out of China.

 

Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston simply as Lord Palmerston - Arrow controversy and the Second Opium War

In October 1856 the Chinese seized the pirate ship Arrow. It had been registered as a British ship two years previously but was owned by a notorious Chinese pirate. The titular captain was British, and the crew was Chinese. It was intercepted in Chinese territorial waters by Chinese coastguards and the Union Flag was pulled down. The Chinese crew was arrested and the British captain was released. The British Consul at Canton, Harry Parkes, protested against this insult to the flag and demanded an apology. The Chinese Commissioner Ye Mingchen refused and it was discovered that the Arrow's registration as a British vessel expired three weeks before it was seized and therefore had no right to fly the flag or to be exempt from interception under international law. However, in disregard of international conventions, Parkes refused to back down in order to save face and protested that the Chinese did not know it was not a British ship at the time they accosted it. Parkes sent the Royal Navy to bombard Ye's palace and it was duly destroyed, along with a large part of the city and a large loss of life. Ye retaliated by issuing a proclamation calling on the people of Canton to "unite in exterminating these troublesome English villains" and offering a $100 bounty for the head of any Englishman as the British factories outside the city were burned to the ground in reprisal.The censure motion was carried by a majority of sixteen and Lord Palmerston requested to the Queen that Parliament be dissolved for a general election, which it duly was. On the international front, the Sino-British crisis escalated subsequently and culminated in the Second Opium War.

Palmerston passed the Factory Act 1853 which removed loopholes in previous Factory Acts and outlawed all labour by young persons between 6pm and 6am.[24] He attempted to pass a Bill that confirmed the rights of workers to combine but this was thrown out by the House of Lords.[25] He introduced the Truck Act which stopped employers paying workmen in goods instead of money, or forcing them to purchase goods from shops owned by the employers.[25] In August 1853 Palmerston introduced the Smoke Abatement Act in order to combat the increasing smoke from coal fires, a problem greatly aggravated by the Industrial Revolution. [25] He also oversaw the passage of the Vaccination Act 1853 into law, which was introduced as a private member's bill, and which Palmerston persuaded the government to support. The Act made vaccination of children compulsory for the first time.[25] Palmerston outlawed the burying of the dead in churches. The right to bury the dead in churches was held by wealthy families whose ancestors had purchased the right in the past. Palmerston opposed this practice on public health grounds and ensured that all bodies were buried in the churchyard or public cemetery.[25] Palmerston passed the Reformatory Schools Act 1854 which gave the Home Secretary powers to send juvenile prisoners to a reformatory school instead of prison. Palmerston strongly opposed Lord John Russell's plans for giving the vote to sections of the urban working-classes. He passed the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 which for the first time made it possible for courts to grant a divorce and removed divorce from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Lord Palmerston also agreed to transfer the authority of the British East India Company to the Crown. This was enacted in the Government of India Act 1858. In his last premiership Palmerston oversaw the passage of important legislation. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 codified and reformed the law, and was part of a wider process of consolidating criminal law. The Companies Act 1862 was the basis of modern company law. [34]

 

At the beginning of the American Civil War, Britain had issued a proclamation of neutrality on 13 May 1861. 

Lord Palmerston decided to recognise the Confederacy as a belligerent and to receive their unofficial representatives (although he decided against recognising the South as a sovereign state because he thought this would be premature). The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat any country which recognised the Southern separatists as a belligerent, as an enemy of the Union and the North. Lord Palmerston ordered that reinforcements be sent to Canada because he was convinced that the North would make peace with the South and then invade Canada.
Lord Palmerston's sympathies in the American Civil War (1861-5) were with the secessionist Southern Confederacy of pro-slavery states. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he also had a deep life-long hostility towards the United States and believed that a dissolution of the Union would weaken the United States (and therefore enhance British power) and that a southern Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures".[41]

 

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure.

He started from comparatively humble origins. He served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain's first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy.[1] He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846. Although a Conservative, Disraeli was sympathetic to some of the demands of the Chartists and argued for an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the merchants and new industrialists in the middle class, helping to found the Young England group in 1842 to promote the view that the landed interests should use their power to protect the poor from exploitation by middle-class businessmen. The end of 1845 and the first months of 1846 were dominated by a battle in parliament between the free traders and the protectionists over the repeal of the Corn Laws, with the latter rallying around Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck. An alliance of pro free-trade Conservatives (the "Peelites"), Radicals, and Whigs carried repeal, and the Conservative Party split: the Peelites moved towards the Whigs, while a "new" Conservative Party formed around the protectionists, led by Disraeli, Bentinck, and Lord Stanley (later Lord Derby).^[27]
In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli's differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath "on the true faith of a Christian." Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.^[31]
The primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by "differentiating"–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.[46] The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel's ministry, but no consensus had been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different "schedules" of income. Disraeli's proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the "damned defences").
Disraeli looked elsewhere and settled on Disraeli's old friend Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who became Secretary of State for the Colonies; Derby's son Lord Stanley, succeeded Ellenborough at the Board of Control. Stanley, with Disraeli's assistance, proposed and guided through the house the India Act, under which the subcontinent would be governed for sixty years. The East India Company and its Governor-General were replaced by a viceroy and the Indian Council, while at Westminster the Board of Control was abolished and its functions assumed by the newly created India Office, under the Secretary of State for India.^[54] Disraeli's first premiership was dominated by the heated debate over the established Church of Ireland. Although Ireland was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, the Protestant Church remained the established church and was funded by direct taxation.
Disraeli and the Conservative Party won the election of 1874, giving the party its first absolute majority in the House of Commons since the 1840s. Disraeli's government introduced various reforms, including the Artisan's and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act 1875, the Public Health Act 1875, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875), and the Education Act (1876).
Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament's consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.[64]
Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over Britain's Balkan policy. Disraeli saw the situation as a matter of British imperial and strategic interests, keeping to Palmerston's policy of supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russian expansion. According to Blake, Disraeli believed in upholding Britain's greatness through a tough, "no nonsense" foreign policy that put Britain's interests above the "moral law" that advocated emancipation of small nations.[65] Gladstone, however, saw the issue in moral terms, for Bulgarian Christians had been massacred by the Turks and Gladstone therefore believed it was immoral to support the Ottoman Empire. Blake further argued that Disraeli's imperialism "decisively orientated the Conservative party for many years to come, and the tradition which he started was probably a bigger electoral asset in winning working-class support during the last quarter of the century than anything else".[65]
A leading proponent of the Great Game, Disraeli introduced the Royal Titles Act 1876, which created Queen Victoria Empress of India, putting her at the same level as the Russian Tsar. In his private correspondence with the Queen, he proposed "to clear Central Asia of Muscovites and drive them into the Caspian".[66] In order to contain Russia's influence, he launched an invasion of Afghanistan and signed the Cyprus Convention with Turkey, whereby this strategically placed island was handed over to Britain.
Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament's consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.^[64]
Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life.^[72] Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was "both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine."^[73] Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called "Shylock" and "abominable Jew," and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia.^[73] In response to an anti-Semitic comment in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon."^[74] One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.^[75]

The Coming of the Russian Ships in 1863 Rush C. Hawkins 
The North American Review Vol. 178, No. 569 (Apr., 1904), pp. 539-544 (article consists of 6 pages)

A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush
Woodrow Wilson,28th president of the United States, taught government at Bryn Mawr College before moving to Princeton University and later serving as governor of New Jersey.

 

Britains Opium War Against the US

Dope, Inc. was commissioned in September 1978 by U.S. Labor Party National Chairman Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., and was produced under his direction. At that time the Labor Party launched an international campaign against organized crime and drug traffic. As LaRouche has pointed out numerous times in the pages of the Labor Party's newspaper, New Solidarity, the forces that run the drug trade are the same forces that are now unleashing every capability — including scenarios for thermo- nuclear war — to halt the emergence of a new monetary system represented by the July 6 establishment of the European Monetary System in Bremen, West Germany, a system founded on the principles elaborated by LaRouche in his 1975 proposal for an International Development Bank. An October 1978 statement issued by LaRouche — "A National Strategy to Control Crime" — formed the kernel of this book.
This book is the product of a 100-person combined research team of the U.S. Labor Party in New York City, the Mexican Labor Party in Mexico City, and the European Labor Party in Wiesbaden, West Germany. The efforts of this team, since its founding in January 1974 under the direction of Lyndon LaRouche, drew the circle tighter around the perpetrators of narcotics traffic over a period of years.