Why People Are Really Voting BNP

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.

 

Advertisements

Obama: Can We Help Fund Hamas? Yes We Can!


A question for Americans: would you want a single dollar to get into the hands of Hamas? No?

Then brace yourselves.

Because if changes in American law are pushed through, financial aid will be sent to a unified Palestinian government – even if Hamas officials are part of that government.

Let’s recap. Despite attempts by the liberal media to rebrand Hamas as doe-eyed ‘resistance fighters’, Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Here’s a whopping big clue to the truth of that statement: Hamas was spawned by the radical Muslim Brotherhood. And so was Al Queda.

Check out the Hamas Charter.  It openly rejects any form of peace negotiations and blames Jews every war ever fought. Indeed, the Charter is one long rant about Jews. Oh, and Rotary Clubs. Both of which, according to Hamas, are responsible for all the world’s ills.

Oh, and we’re all familiar with the numerous videos of Hamas leaders and followers declaring their desire to ‘drink jewish blood’, right?

Hamas has always refused to recognise the right of Israel to exist. It won’t acknowledge any Jewish presence in the Middle East, period.

And no matter how hard Israel has tried to broker a peace, Hamas has remained resolute. Indeed, the group has been extremely busy for the past six years, bombarding southern Israel with missiles.

And let’s not overlook the countless suicide bombings – you know, the ones steadfastly ignored mentioned in the mainstream media.

Thus the notion of financial aid ending up in Hamas hands is pretty terrifying, frankly.

Bush would never have entertained it. But apparently Obama’s response to the question of whether America can, ethically, give funds to Hamas is ‘Yes We Can!’.

“The administration’s proposal is akin to agreeing to support a government that “only has a few Nazis in it,” Rep. Mark Steven Kirk told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a House hearing last week.

The Democrats have discussed the changes to the law governing funding to Gaza this month, as part of an $83.4-billion emergency spending bill that also contains funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also would provide $840 million for the Palestinian Authority and for rebuilding in Gaza, following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead earlier this year.

American officials stress that the new proposal doesn’t amount to recognizing or helping Hamas. Under law, any U.S. aid would require that the Palestinian government meet three criteria: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas does not meet those criteria.


But if rival groups Fatah and Hamas achieve a power-sharing deal, Obama wants to provide aid as long as the Hamas-backed members of the government — if not Hamas itself — meet the three criteria.

Clinton defended the administration’s position last week before Congress. She said that the United States supports and funds the Lebanese government, even though it includes members of Hezbollah, another terrorist group.

She also proposed that the United States should try to gradually change the attitudes of Hamas members, as it did with militants in Northern Ireland.

Yeah, good luck with that, Hilary. Anyone who has paid attention to what Hamas itself states is painfully aware that trying to ‘adjust’ Hamas attitudes would be like Chamberlain beseeching the Nazis to ‘just give Jews a chance’.

And the IRA analogy, so beloved by politicians and pundits alike, is invalid. The IRA did not seek the slaughter of an entire religion. Hamas openly does.

Besides which, both Hilary and Obama fail to grasp the vital point: Islamic law states that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam. Once Muslim, always Muslim.

Hence the claim on Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It’s about religion – not land.

The war between Hamas and Israel is not just a localised issue. Nor does it have anything to do with the ‘palestinian problem’.

Rather, it is merely part of a global conflict between the free world – and Islam. The Jihad against Israel is the exact same Jihad being waged against America and Europe.

What will it take for Obama, and indeed the world, to get this?

One shudders to imagine.