Category Archives: Politics
To be clear: I loathe all the British political parties equally. I break out in an allergic rash every time Gordon Brown appears on T.V. I can’t stand Nick Clegg, the tiny twit who would have us embrace Proportional Representation and thus make it far easier for parties such as the neo Nazi BNP to gain power. As for David Cameron…he didn’t come over brilliantly in the live debates and if anything, he’s probably just the best of a terrible bunch.
One thing is for sure though, the potential calamity that awaits us is a coalition government made up of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, that’s right – the two parties who were categorically rejected by the British electorate could yet make some sort of deal and emerge as our new ‘government’. That is a nightmare scenario and one can only pray it doesn’t come to pass. As I write this, Labour heavyweights are lining up to choose a new leader, while Cameron & Clegg (I mean, come on, they even sound like some sort of comic duo) are desperately trying to thrash out some kind of deal that both can get their own parties to accept.
Only one phrase comes to mind that satisfactorily sums up my present feelings about the state of affairs in Britain – and that’s a loud, passionate and plaintive ‘Oy Vey…..!
We may only do it once a year, but when Jews and Christians join forces to lobby government on behalf of Israel, we sure do it with passion.
I spent yesterday with the British Zionist Federation and Christian Friends Of Israel – two groups that work closely together to try and get Israel a fair hearing in Britain. For the past five years, these groups have spent a day every year meeting with various MPs and discussing the way the British media represents – or rather MISrepresents Israel.
Last year there were around three hundred of us. This year, even more people showed up and the atmosphere was one of genuine frustration with the BBC and also with various MPs who are openly hostile towards Israel.
One thing which struck me was that, for all the supposed ‘differences’ between Jews and Christians, we do share a good sense of humour. The two hosts, Eric Moonman(ZF) and Geoffrey Smith (CFI) are both wonderful and had us laughing at the start of the day with their irreverant and charming humour. Geoffrey Smith also reminded us of a vital point to convey to those who argue: why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, since Israel does?
Smith pointed out: Israel has had nuclear weapons for several decades. Not once did any of the nearby Arab nations demand their own nuclear devices – because they’ve always trusted Israel. But since Iran has started enriching uranium and it’s become clear that Ahmadinejad has nuclear ambitions, several of those same Arab countries have stated that now they too want nuclear weapons.
This is an excellent point and one which we need to remind people of.
A lot of other interesting information was conveyed at the various sessions yesterday – I’m going to post something on them tomorrow so for those who may be interested, watch this space…!
Oh, and before anyone starts leaving stupid comments about Britain’s ‘israel lobby’, they might care to note: one of the MPs yesterday told us that British Muslims and several Muslim groups are ‘constantly throwing receptions and dinners’ for British politicians….
I’m not sure this is even news – given that most of us are painfully aware of the BBC bias towards leftist lunacy.
A senior BBC executive is being accused of political bias after calling for the corporation to promote ‘left of centre’ thinking. Ben Stephenson, controller of drama commissioning, made the comment on a blog for a left-wing newspaper.
The Conservatives have called for him to apologise and to retract the remarks. Trying desperately to neutralise his remarks, Stephenson has claimed he was just calling for more diverse opinions and out-of-the-box ideas: ‘We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.’
Sure. Oh my G-d – what was that big pink creature that just went diving past my window??? It was a kosher pig.
And Stephenson’s pitiful wriggling is fooling nobody. Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has stated that the comments were a ‘clear breach’ of the BBC’s impartiality obligations.
The BBC being impartial? Can anyone remember when this last happened…?
This just in from (IsraelNN.com):
U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies have left an Israeli attack on Iran the only option in preventing the Muslim country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton wrote in The Washington Post today.
In an article headlined “Time for an Israeli Strike?” Bolton answered his own question by stating: “Israel’s decision of whether to use military force against Tehran’s nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever… Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities.”
A long-time supporter of Israel and a harsh critic of the U.N., Bolton claimed that the Iranian nuclear threat “was never in doubt“ during the American presidential campaign, but is even more certain following the apparent failure of the resistance movement in Iran.
Bolton also wrote:
“With no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.”
He chastised the Obama administration for strategic and tactical flaws by continuing its effort to negotiate with Iran. Bolton declared that American officials think Iran will be more anxious than ever to be “accepted” following the alleged rigged victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last month’s election.
“Tehran isn’t going to negotiate in good faith,” Bolton maintained. “It hasn’t for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won’t start now… Second, given Iran’s nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.”
Bolton expressed fears that President Obama’s “Plan B” would allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear program for peaceful purposes while publicly stating it has no military objectives.
“Obama would define such an outcome as ‘success,’ even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now,” the former ambassador continued.
“Anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran’s June 12 election.” – John Bolton
Bolton wrote that negotiations with Iran would place Israel in “an even more dangerous trap.”
“Failure to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iran means that the world must be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.”
Ah yes – yet another example of Muslim ‘respect’ for their Christian neighbours. This is a disturbing account of how two young Christian boys have been beheaded in Somalia – for refusing to rat out a Church leader. And now apparently those ‘peaceful’ Muslims are searching for the boys’ father, to deliver the same fate.
The boys’ father, Musa Mohammed Yusuf, lead an underground Church in Yonday village, Somalia. He had been taught about the Christian faith by Salat Mberwa.
Then, in February, terrorists from the Islamic group al Shabaab arrived in Yonday, made for Yusuf’s home, and interrogated him about his friendship with Mberwa. Mberwa is a leader of a small Somali Christian fellowship. Meetings are held at his house.
Yusuf told his interrogators that he knew nothing of Mberwa and had no connection with him. The Islamic extremists left but threatened to return the next day.
“Immediately when they left, I decided to flee my house for Kismayo, for I knew for sure they were determined to come back,” Yusuf said.
At noon the next day, as his wife was making lunch for their children in Yonday, the al Shabaab militants showed up. Batula Ali Arbow, Yusuf’s wife, recalled that their youngest son, Innocent, told the group that their father had left the house the previous day.
The Islamic extremists ordered her to stop what she was doing and took hold of three of her sons – 11 year-old Abdi Rahaman Musa Yusuf, 12 -year-old Hussein Musa Yusuf and Abdulahi Musa Yusuf, aged 7.
Several neighbors beseeched the militants not to harm the three boys, tragically to no avail.
“I watched my three boys dragged away helplessly as my youngest boy was crying. I knew they were going to be slaughtered. Just after some few minutes I heard a wailing cry from Abdulahi running towards the house. I could not hold my breath. I only woke up with all my clothes wet. I knew I had fainted due to the shock.”
The following day, Arbow buried the bodies of her two sons.
In Kismayo, Yusuf received the news that two of his sons had been killed and that the Islamic militants were looking for him, and he fled on foot for Mberwa’s home. It took him a month and three days to reach him, and the Christian fellowship there raised travel funds for him to reach a refugee camp in Kenya.
Later that month his family met up with him at the refugee camp.When the family fled Somalia, they were forced to leave their 80-year-old grandmother behind and her whereabouts are unknown. Since arriving at the Kenyan refugee camp, the family still has no shelter, though fellow Christians are erecting one for them. Yusuf’s family lives each day without shoes, a mattress or shelter.
But Arbow said she has no wish to return.
“I do not want to go back to Somalia – I don’t want to see the graves of my children,” she said amid sobs.
Meanwhile, Western intelligence agencies say that al Shabaab is merely a proxy for Al Queda. Christians in Somalia are suffering terribly and those in refugee camps are desperate.
“We have nowhere to run to,” Mberwa told Compass. “The al Shabaab are on our heads, while our Muslim brothers are also discriminating against us. Indeed even here in the refugee camp we are not safe. We need a safe haven elsewhere.”
Al-Shabaab has been waging a bloody war against the fragile government of Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In a show of power in the capital city of Mogadishu, last week Islamic insurgents sentenced four young men each to amputation of a hand and a foot as punishment for robbery.
After mosques announced when the amputations would take place, the extremists carried them out by machete in front of about 300 people on Thursday (June 25) at a military camp. It was the first such double amputation in Mogadishu by the Islamists, who follow strict Sharia Law (Islamic law) in the parts of south Somalia that they control.
Al Shabaab militants are battling Ahmed’s government for control of Mogadishu while fighting government-allied, moderate Islamist militia in the provinces. In the last 18 years of violence in Somalia, a two-and-a-half year Islamist insurgency has killed more than 18,000 civilians, uprooted 1 million people, allowed piracy to flourish offshore, and spread security fears round the region.
Hmmm…. odd. Where is the outcry from the international media, denouncing these Muslims terrorists as ‘Nazis’…? Oops! Silly me! That’s reserved for Israelis seeking to defend their civilians against Islamic terrorist group Hamas.
And when you read about the atrocities in Somalia, and elsewhere, that result from Sharia Law, remember: this is the religious system that Barack Obama praised and paid tribute to in Cairo. Clearly Obama doesn’t intend to ‘meddle’ on behalf of Christians in Somalia. No, he’s far too busy ordering Israelis not to have any more children if they live in Judea and Samaria.
And this upsetting tale from Somalia is not an isolated atrocity. Christians in Muslim countries around the world are suffering and are in need of support and help.
All of which begs the question: why isn’t Obama – himself a Christian – doing more to help his co-religionists…? Why is he instead busy sending increased aid to Muslim countries and banging his head against a brick wall in his continued bid to make Iran his New Best Friend…?
Original story at Compass Direct News
Reed it and weep, people:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case. In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government’s court brief filed in early June was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime ally” just before President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible for acts of terrorism committed by others.
The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained property damage and other losses.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal judge’s ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents.
In their appeal to the high court, both sides cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding. The Saudis’ court filing, however, pointed out that the commission “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”
The victims’ lawsuits claim that the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations that were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The appeal also stressed that federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions about when foreign governments and their officials can be sued.
The case is Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 08-640.
Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.
Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.
Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.
But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases. Now Civitas notes that many Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.
“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”
Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.
In this case, British law prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.
As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts, MacEoin has had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:
Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.
Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.
Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …
…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …
a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …
fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”
Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:
“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal. A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”
Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.
But Addison begs to differ:
“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”
Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid any legal action on the part of the victim.
Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?
Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!
But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.
It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.
Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.
And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.
But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of democracy…?
I urge you to read this article; what are your thoughts…?
Obama’s ‘Jewish Experts’
by Jack Engelhard
This is getting uncomfortable.
A few days ago, George Mitchell once again expressed his position, and opposition, even to “natural growth” in Judea and Samaria. Both Mitchell and Hillary Clinton speak for themselves and for President Barack Obama, who’s made this – Jewish life in the “settlements” – his priority above all other international disputes.
Even the language is disturbing. Mitchell – top Middle East envoy along with Clinton – explained that the controversy centered on “the number of Jewish births.”
Where have we heard this before? To my mind, as someone who was born under similar conditions, in France under Vichy, where Jews were kept within “restricted zones,” this sounds too much like Verboten!
When I hear American diplomats, and Obama himself, count the number of children allotted per Jewish family, at the same time measuring Jewish growth by the inch, the images that come to mind, to my mind, are of an earlier time, though not so long ago, when the Third Reich confronted the “Jewish Problem” by way of the Nuremberg Laws and the Wannsee Conference.
I picture Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann. They, too, were “Jewish Experts.”
I hear echoes of “none is too many.” That was the response from Canada’s Mackenzie King’s government on the question of how many Jews were to be allowed inside the country following the Holocaust. Those words still ring throughout Canada, especially among survivors, but how did “none is too many” become an American position so fast and furious?
On top of that, there’s The New York Times’ Blood Libel of the Day. Today, it’s Tony Judt’s turn for his “expertise.”
I’m not saying that Mitchell and Clinton are Heydrich and Eichmann – but I am watching too many scenes that feature (in my imagination) long speeches amplified by radio, round-ups, sealed trains, enclosures, ghettos, quotas. This takes me back to all that and it is unpleasant. We were supposed to allow this never again.
The past has returned, as my eyes see it, and we’re watching it unfold with diplomacy that’s too familiar.
When our ship came in – into Philadelphia – we were greeted, but not with brotherly love, back in April 1944. This boat was the Serpa Pinto (one of the few Jewish refugee voyages that were successful) and, as my sister Sarah recalls in her memoirs:
“The city arranged planks upon the docking area and had us under armed guards lest we step on American soil.”
We were, paradoxically, en route to Canada. America wouldn’t have us. (Finally and thankfully, yes.)
Here we go again – but now in Israel? None is too many?
Mitchell and Clinton, and certainly Obama – do they know the Jewish Experience and what it means to restrict Jews and place them into “zones”? I’m not talking politics and policy. That’s too complicated for this trip.
I’m talking about the sound, the roar of approval this brings to mind, from the beer halls in Bavaria on to the rallies in Berlin when the chancellor spoke.
I hear those sirens, still, and when they – Mitchell and Clinton – prohibit Jewish children, so diplomatically but emphatically, I can’t help myself. I find my father packing our bags to prepare for an escape, and when the language gets to “the number of Jewish births,” I’m not hearing Mitchell, but watching Leini Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will.
Those who’ve been there before, like me, are on alert for slippery talk like “peace process” when we know the merchandise being sold is the yellow badge.
“They make smooth their tongue,” wrote King David, “against Your anointed…. Save Your people and bless Your inheritance, Your children.”
(italics etc were mine; to read the original article, go to Arutz Sheva by clicking HERE
Obama’s moral equivalence is reaching new depths. You may recall that the US had invited Iranian diplomats to attend July 4th celebrations at American embassies. Many people assumed that these invites – absurd to start with – would be rescinded given Iran’s violent measures against protesters at present.
But no – the Dhimmi in the White House clearly wouldn’t dream of a public show of solidarity with the Iranian people! Instead:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
“We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,” Kelly said. “We tried many years of isolation, and we’re pursuing a different path now.”
And what a path it is!
Inviting Iranian diplomats to July 4th parties would be like the Allies inviting the Nazis to Thanksgiving lunch. Does Obama really think that a few fireworks and hotdogs are going to overcome Islamic hatred for all things democratic and Western…?
If so, he’s not just a dhimmi.
He’s a fool.
The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme fruitcake – sorry, leader - today voiced support for Ahmadinejad. His statement comes after a week of violent protests and accusations of election rigging.
Speaking at Tehran University today, the Ayatollah also lambasted the British government, calling it: ‘the most treacherous in the world.’
And responding to international concerns over the legitimacy of the vote, he added: ‘Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory.’
It seems that Khamenei’s attack on Britain was triggered by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, and their statements on Iran earlier in the week. Iran’s Ambassador to Britain Rasoul Movahedian has now been summoned to the Foreign Office where officials are expected to lodge a formal complaint about the Ayatollah’s remarks.
But today, thousands of Iranians attended the speech by the Ayatollah. The masses chanted ‘Death to the UK, American and Israel’.
Undeterred, Gordon Brown today criticised Iran further, condemning the violence and media blackout which occurred in the wake of the rioting over the election results. Mr Brown stated: “The eyes of the world are on Iran. It is for Iran now to show the world that the elections are fair.”
Iran’s president, Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended the Ayatollah’s speech today, as did his rival Mirhossein Mousavi.
Mousavi supporters have arranged another rally for tomorrow. But if they proceed in defiance of Khamenei’s warning, they risk a severe response from security forces.
Hopefully, Iran will be far too busy with its own problems to continue threatening to destroy Israel…
For years, the world has turned a deaf ear to Israel’s concerns about Iran. The Jewish nation has been urging the international community to take this issue seriously for a long time. But the reaction was one of indifference.
Now, the head of the UN’s own nuclear watchdog, has stated that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. UN sanctions against Iran have – quelle surprise! – failed. Iran remains determined to complete this project.
Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency has told the BBC:
“It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons. They want to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world, ‘Don’t mess with us.’“
At present, Iran is in chaos. Resident lunatic and incumbent president, Ahmadinejad, is trying to remain in power by silencing protestors. He stands accused of rigging last week’s elections. His rival, so-called ‘moderate’ Mir Hossein Mousavi, has called for the election to be annulled and held a second time.
Hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters have been protesting across the country, and have clashed with Basij militia forces loyal to Ahmadinejad. Reports suggest that numerous protesters have been injured and that at least twelve have been shot dead.
Local sources insist the numbers are far higher.
But let’s face it: no matter which of these two ends up in power, Iran’s nuclear ambition will not change.
And even the Great Dhimmi himself, Barack Obama, has noted that Iran will remain a threat no matter who is the acting president:
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” he said.
Obama added that “either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons.”
Israeli researcher Brandon Friedman in an interview with Israel National News, said: “ The election of Iran’s president was not relevant to the issue of the nuclear threat to Israel.“
And he pointed out: “Iranian foreign policy is under the control of Khameni. The question Israel should be asking is, what is the danger level of the office of the Supreme Leader with respect to Israel, as opposed to the presidency. I think foreign affairs begin and end with the Supreme Leader, so that’s the question we should be asking ourselves.
The primary difference for Israel, as well as the rest of the world has to do with perception and the face that Iran will be presenting to the world. Clearly Israel has a good idea what sort of face Ahmadinejad presents to the world. With Mousavi it is harder to know what sort of face he would have presented if he had won.“
Friedman agreed with an assessment by Israeli international Mossad intelligence agency head Meir Dagan that the unrest was likely to end shortly, but said that he, too, had been taken aback at the upheaval in Iran.
Just when you think you’ve heard it all, along come more revelations about the greed of our MPs.
A prime example is the millionaire Brian Binley, MP for Northhampton South. He charged taxpaye£1,500 a month for over three years, even after being told these claims were unacceptable and a clear breach of the rules.
Commons officials reprimanded Mr Binley in April 2006, but he appealed to the then Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, who failed to do anything until this April.
By paying himself rent, Mr Binley has made a nice fat profit.
He’s quite a greedy chap, is Binley. When he first entered the Commons, back in 2005, he claimed the ‘second homes’ allowance for staying in the expensive and luxurious Carlton Club.
Pitiful, isn’t it?
Is the BNP, that party of vile wannabe Hitlers, set to become the real opposition in Britain?
It could happen, and easily. The sole reason the BNP secured any votes in the recent elections is because they are addressing one topic that no other party will: immigration.
Of course, the BNP are anti immigration because the mere idea of any more ‘non whites’ setting foot on the fair streets of Britain sends them into panic mode. Bad enough that there are Jews and Asians and Muslims and Black people living in the country right now! But let even more in? Perish the thought!
And so, desperate to ‘cleanse’ Britain, the BNP is only too happy to tackle immigration.
Meanwhile, the mainstream parties are still busy ignoring what Brits are saying on this topic. And what we’re saying is pretty damn clear. Eighty per cent of people questioned in a YouGov poll for the independent think-tank MigrationWatch are ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about levels of immigration.
But this concern has nothing to do with the racist sentiments of the BNP.
Max Hastings neatly sums up the cost of chaotic immigration to Britain in his recent piece: ‘BNP In Power: Immigration And This Insidious Silence’.
Consider these facts:
*In 2007, the last year for which figures are available, 333,000 more foreign nationals entered Britain than left.
* There are also an estimated 725,000 illegal immigrants in the country, 518,000 of these in London.
*On the Government’s own, almost certainly understated, numbers, our population will pass 70 million by 2028. It could reach 80 million in the course of the century.
*We are the most overcrowded country in Europe, save Malta.
*Asylum-seekers now account for only 10 % of newcomers - though still 30,000 a year. Most new arrivals come from the Third World, at a rate which is increasing the national population by almost one per cent every two years.
*A report by the House of Lords’ Economic Committee concluded that, contrary to Labour propaganda, immigration has had ‘little or no impact’ on the economic well-being of Britain and offers ‘insignificant’ benefits to the existing UK population.
*The argument that we need masses of immigrants to compensate for our ageing domestic workforce is nullified by the reality - obvious to all except Labour ministers - that immigrants, too, get old and become pensioners.
* There are 300 primary schools in England where more than 70 per cent of pupils - nearly half a million children - use English only as a second language
*Police officers in Cambridgeshire, for instance, must deal with cases in almost 100 languages. The county’s translation costs have risen from £220,000 in 2002-3 to £800,000 in 2006-7. Its drink-drive figures show a 17-fold increase in arrests of foreigners.
And especially worrying:
*There are also heavy health costs - which seem especially relevant in a week when new figures show the NHS heading for a major financial crisis by 2011.
*A few years ago, tuberculosis was all but extinct in Britain. Today, there is a striking increase in reported cases, 65 per cent of them involving patients not born in Britain, with 21 per cent Africanborn. Hepatitis B cases have almost doubled in six years, to 325,000, 96 per cent of these involving patients born outside the UK.
Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch says: “The Tories decline to discuss immigration at all. The LibDems have no policy except for an attack on illegal immigration. The Government gives an appearance of activity, but has not yet taken effective action.
‘We have been warning until we are blue in the face that if the major parties fail to address this issue, extremists would start to gain public support.“
The recent BNP success should be a clarion call to the mainstream parties. What will it take for Labour to reform immigration? What will it take for the Conservatives to start acting like a decent Opposition party?
People want change on immigration. If the mainstream parties don’t provide it, then the BNP and only the BNP will profit. So if either Labour or Conservative truly care about this country, they need to act on immigration, and fast.
The Denver Post enlightens the rest of us:
CHICAGO — In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation’s most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House.
The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names.
“It was mostly under the radar,” Williams said. “We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn’t know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community.”
I’m sure we’re all wondering the same thing. Namely – did Obama also get a list of the ‘top’ Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Atheists, and so on…?
Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is suggesting we find an alternative symbol for the Red Cross because of the logo’s supposed links to the Crusades.
MPs are debating the adoption of the ‘red crystal’ – a diamond-shaped badge – to avoid the religious connotations of the cross and crescent symbols currently used by the international body.
But critics said the new insignia was a sop to political correctness and warned that it may be the first step towards it replacing cross and crescent. Others fear that it may not be as widely recognised on the battlefield.
‘It is, in an effort not to be contentious, possibly too anodyne to serve its purpose,’ Tory MP John Hayes said.
Philip Davies, a Tory backbencher, said: ‘At face value to the layman it seems at best a solution looking for a problem and at worst another example of extreme political correctness.
‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.
The founding Conference of the Red Cross Movement in 1863 adopted a red cross on a white background – the reverse of the Swiss flag – as the emblem of the voluntary medical personnel who assisted the wounded on the battlefield.
It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.
However, the symbol unintentionally raised suggestions that it was somehow linked to the Hospitallers, a military order which took part in the Crusades, the centuries long series of military campaigns waged by Christians from Europe.
Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.
Mr Bryant told the Commons: ‘The reference to the Crusades is… not lost to some people which, of course, anybody involved in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hope that the neutrality of the red crystal will help improve protection for casualties, military medical services and humanitarian workers.
It was chosen because it is devoid of religious and other partisan connotations.