Ukraine4Peace

All politicians are businesses, this is 1st and foremost, they are self employed  (employed via a registered limited company they themselves set up) they are directors of this business.

 

This is fact.

 

A politician (business) is 'contracted' to disseminate the agenda of one 'political party' (the 'party' being the main 'political business', this 'political party' will also be a registered business), it is the politicians’ (contractors) duty to challenge politicians and other political parties (one business challenging another business).

 

All politicians and political parties have one business goal; their sole purpose is to achieve the prized goal, directorship of a country, either as a prime minister or president.

 

All these ‘business-to-business’ (known as politics) interactions fall under CONTRACT LAW, and they themselves are named 'legalities', NOT Law; such as that defined as the 'Law of the land', for example, in the UK there is COMMON LAW (the Magna Carta) this is the ONLY 'Law of the land', and every citizen is bound to it at birth, whereas, MP's (politicians) and parliament produce and enact 'legalities' known as 'legislation' (the UK does not have a constitution), these 'legalities' are merely 'contracts', they are NOT and never will be 'Law'.

 

However, this is the catch; when 'legislation' is passed/agreed upon in UK parliament by MP's, it is assumed 'all' citizens (of the UK) are in agreement of the said 'legislation', this assumption forms 'the contract' (something being offered, something being accepted), and it is held against every UK citizen in-acquiescence (which means they agree without recourse or knowledge to decline there and then), that each individual agrees to the said legislation. That is, until a citizen says 'NO', and withdraws any perceived consent, this withdrawal of consent breaks the 'contract', and one would have to claim to be judged based on COMMON LAW, a Constitution, the 'Law of the Land', given that all citizens are bound by it.

 

Within the Ukraine there exsists a 'Constitution', this is the Law; 'Law of the Land', everything not contained within it is 'legislation', a 'legality' enforced under 'contract' ONLY, that is, if you consent first, if you never consent, then you can never be held under it, therefore, later if you find yourself in a pickle, you can remove any perceived consent that was placed upon you in acquiescence, by merely stating "I does not consent".

 

This is why for example: in the UK, when MP’s lied about their business political expenses (exposed in 2009) that they were claiming via their respective businesses, from public money, that is ‘tax payers money’, it was hard to get to the root of the problems, as all politicians would have ‘limited liabilities’ (hold no liability to refund any errors, or they'd hold liability at £0 value) under their respective businesses terms and conditions, to repay and monies claimed in error. Therefore, some politicians would be able to admit guilt, but never repay anything (unless they did it morally) nor could the legal system prosecute these 'businesses' successfully at least if these businesses had covered there liabilities first. Hence, the best the 'head offices' of these political parties could do was to break the individual contract(s) [sack the politician(s)] they had with the politician(s)/businesses in question.

 

Yet trust me, it would never worded this way to the public or media.

 

Therefore, if we look at the Kiev situation what we find is that the people of the Ukraine democratically elected Yanakovich to power with his ‘Party of Regions’, all of which are businesses. You have the opposition, who themselves are businesses (or claim to be), yet much smaller than Yanovich's business or associations. So what does the little business (the opposition) do against the big business, well it went in-hand to the EU and US, to help fund its own expansion (take-over) in the Ukraine.

 

Hence, you see the effects in Kiev since Nov '13.

 

The EU and US were never going to turn away a gift-horse-in-the-mouth, seen in these 'three stooges' (Klitchko, Yacenuk, Tyagnebok), as it was their way (the US/EU) to get a footing in the Ukraine.

 

However, as much as the EU and US spout about ‘peaceful protests’ and criticising Yanakovich, it’s the EU and US that have shown 'the world' how to handle protesters. So all we need to do it look online, youtube, and various dedicated sites, highliting all the efforts the US and EU have done to ‘suppress the right to peaceful protests’, by force of the police and the army; kettle calling the pot black, it seems.

 

It really does paint an accurate picture that the US & EU will back terrorism, if it is not on their soil, but in their sole interests.

 

Yanakovich should have days ago, in-fact weeks ago, called a ‘state of emergency’ and locked down Kiev, saving publicly funded buildings, monuments and the Ukrainian way of life, that has been destroyed and eroded away by the terrorist protesters lead by the 'three stooges' (Klitchko, Yacenuk, Tyagnebok), so, with that in mind, if Yanakovich will not use the army and police for the jobs they were trained to fulfil and provide, then this is Yanakovich right (a wrong choice, but it is his choice), as the police and army are contracted businesses to the current government (these are all business-to-business relationships never forget, politics is simply 'business relationships'). The army and police will do what their contract dictates, by the tender (the current government).

 

However, as a concerned business collective, if we can raise funds (not really sure how much would be needed) but we too can contract with the Army, police, security firms, and pay these professionals to do what they were trained to do, protect innocent citizens and property from terrorists.

 

It is bizzare that Yanakovich debates and compromises with the 'three stooges' of the US/EU (Klitchko, Yacenuk, Tyagnebok), as I always thought it was a governments position to NEVER give into terrorist demands.