Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley spout nonsense and misinformation

Conspiracy theorists Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley show their ignorance when discuss the Westminster system of government and the British Monarchy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b51LMBxQIo

Alex Jones makes a big deal about the Queen being Canadas Head of State, not seeming to realise that in Parliamentary systems of government the Head of State and Head of Government are separate. It is the Prime Minister, not the Queen, who holds all executive power.
Jones also appears to be under the impression that Stephen Harpers Conservative party lost the October 2008 Canadian federal election. In fact the Conservatives won the election, increased its vote share and number of seats in the House of Commons. Jones states Harpers party is the minority party when in fact it was the biggest party in parliament, it just didnt have an overall majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_2008

Jones frequently refers to a Reuters article as evidence that the Queen has suspended Parliament. However the article in question does not say that, the headline he quotes and shows to camera clearly says Canadian PM wins suspension of Parliament.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B34BC20081204

Jones then introduces Webster Tarpley who is described as an expert on the British system of government and the Commonwealth of Nations. However Tarpley doesnt seem to know how many countries are in the Commonwealth (he says there are over 70 countries when there are only 53, he says Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of States of all of them, when its only 16). Most startling for someone described as an expert, Tarpley thinks Governor General Michaëlle Jean is a man, when she a woman.

Although the article he talks about states Parliament was prorogated at the request of the Prime Minister, Tarpley says that Governor General has the most power, because [s]he is the one who suspended Parliament. It may be the Governor General who actually did the act but she wouldnt have been able to do so without the Prime Ministers explicit instructions.

Tarpley states two examples to try and show that the Queen and Governor General have the real power. First he says the Queen appointed new senators to vote the way she wanted in the North American Free Trade Agreement debate - yet again, Tarpley gets it wrong. Appointments to the Canadian Senate are only ever made by the monarch on prime ministerial advice. Also, it wasnt the NAFTA debate where new senators were appointed it was the Goods and Services Tax debate and it was Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who wanted the new appointments not the Queen.

The other example stated by Tarpley is The Dismissal, which was a constitutional crisis in 1975 Australia where the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was removed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr. Tarpley suggests that this was all the work of the Queen, he gives no evidence of this, in reality the Queen kept out of the situation and the Governor-General who was surrounded in controversy.
Tarpley dramatically over simplifies what happened. Without wanting to do that same, one of the key things to note is that Tarpley does not mention that the Whitlam Government was accused of attempting to illegally borrow money from Middle Eastern countries, bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury. It had nothing to do with London and New York as Tarpley suggests. Also the government was dismissed by the Governor-General who did not consult the Queen. In fact the Queen released a statement at the time saying the only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.
http://whitlamdismissal.com/documents/letter-from-queen.shtml

Alex Jones continues to make several historical errors, not just about the British Monarchy but also basic history of the United States. Jones states that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was on the British thrown during the time of the American War of Independence. This is wrong; it was the House of Hanover at the time. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only came to the British thrown after Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and their son became King in 1901, 125 years after the United States declared independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs#House_of_Hanover

Jones also says that the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against Britain because King George III tried to removed the colonists weapons. In reality the war stated because the colonists rejected the right of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Alex
• Jones
• show
• Webster
• Tarpley
• NWO
• Conspiracy
• theory
• Queen
• Elizabeth
• II
• of
• the
• United
• Kingdom
• Queen of England
• Illuminati

[MrPiccolop]

There are things wrong with Alex, Tarpley and this video. The 'democracy' thing made me cringe... Tarpley appears to be quite accomplished academically but people make mistakes...

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@VajinalBloodFart

The Admiralty Laws only apply to the sea. It's flattering that so many people believe these conspiracy theories about the UK secretly ruling the world, but it's not true.

[ColtraneTaylor]

@Medeasbiggestfan At present I don't have anything that would counter your statement but I'm far from convinced of that.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@ColtraneTaylor

The head of state of Australia is determined by the Parliament of Australia. Parliament could easily vote to remove the monarchy and there is little the Royal Family could or would do about it. The Queen was once head of state of Malta, Mauritius, South Africa and several other countries, but the Parliaments of those countries voted to remove the monarchy.

[ColtraneTaylor]

@Medeasbiggestfan "Clarence House, ... which doubles as an office for the Prince of Wales and his son, Prince William, demanded the ABC cancel plans to use the controversial comedy group, the Chaser, as royal wedding commentators,” reports the Sydney Morning Herald. They then contacted broadcast suppliers, including the host BBC, Associated Press Television News (APTN), Sky and ITN, to ensure the ABC would have no access to footage if it ignored the request." They will respect the OZ pm's wish?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@ColtraneTaylor

The BBC prevented ABC's The Chaser from using their wedding coverage for satire. I don't think that means the Royal family runs Australia. If they did, why does the Australian Prime Minister support the idea of Australia becoming a republic when the Queen dies?

[ColtraneTaylor]

@Medeasbiggestfan 'Sex' - Tarpley's not allowed one flub. He normally displays a great memory and according to some a near photographic memory on certain topics. Maybe his thoughts broke down for an instant, it's hardly enough to discredit him.

[ColtraneTaylor]

@Medeasbiggestfan "No evidence" is a good way to cover up what intelligent people have every reason to suspect IS happening. And once anyone (I haven't yet) looks into it I think they'll find they have. Btw, the royal family just recently did get the British media to shut down coverage to Australia's ABC if they continued running a satirical show about the royals which would include satirical commentary about the wedding. That came from the Haus of Saxe Coburg Gotha.