Labour Wrecked UK for Votes

Since Labour came to power in 1997 they admitted 3.2 million immigrants to this very small island. It is estimated that through inefficiency a further 1 million entered the UK illegally. of course EU citizens are allowed free entry but of this 3.2 million 80% came from outside the EU + the 1 million illegals who no doubt came from the muslim third world.

The reason for this was to increase the number of Labour voters and the secret intention was to ‘rub the Right’s noses in diversity’, in order to create a ‘multicultural’ Britain alien to the Tory party and its supporters.

"For years, opinion polls made immigration top of the list of concerns with 77% of the population.
But anyone who tried to discuss it was denounced as ‘racist’ by the liberal class, led by the BBC which, to its eternal disgrace, crushed any debate on this vital issue.

Of course, fears about migration had nothing to do with race. They were born of understandable worry that housing, schools and hospitals could not cope with the unprecedented number of arrivals.

Furthermore, they stemmed from alarm at how the jobs market was being flooded with cheap foreign labour – with 75 per cent of new jobs being taken by incomers."

"Only Labour knows why it deliberately ignored these legitimate concerns about the future of this country, while slurring as ‘bigots’ anybody who dared to voice them. Quite simply, Labour changed the make-up of this country for ever – and in clear defiance of the public will.

But, whatever the motivation, it is undeniable that Labour cynically and repeatedly lied to voters about immigration – one of the greatest acts of democratic vandalism since the war, which shattered the bond of trust between government and electorate." Daily Mail

This is why my previous post "I am an Englishman" says it all in 2011. This is why the EDL is growing in numbers and this is why the political climate has changed in the UK. The tide has turned and I would like Americans to know that because the US is now where we were.

I would also like to say that those Americans on WZ (a nastier American than here) who say "we deserve it", "UK an islamic cesspool", "it's our own fault" ARE WRONG. They (Labour) didn't ask us, they told us. Now it's time for the "sons of England to rise up" - from the film on my previous post and rising up they are.

I am an Englishman

I have uploaded an excerpt from a TV series that says it all for those who wish to defend their culture from islam. For us English it says it all but I am sure those of other nationalilities will understand the sentiments. Why is it that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish can celebrate their own identities without recrimination but the English will be branded as right wing, racist, xenophobic?

 Every word spoken will strike a chord with all of us who are true Englishmen. This is a classic, a "must see", an important film. It's not what the producers intended in 2002 but in 2011 the message is loud and clear:

The Real Elephant In The Room

What all the dhimmified politicians fail to see when they talk about islam "should be integrated" into our Western Societies is that muslims do not want to integrate - the quran tells them not to do so. This is the elephant in the room that ALL of those idiot politicians cannot or refuse to see.

Pat Condell in his latest piece sees the elephant and says "islam dominates, it doesn't integrate" in his usual inimitable style.

EDL on BBC London News

Tommy Robinson, Leader of the EDL seems to be doing well in the media recently. He successfully managed to "stuff" Jeremy Paxman on BBC 2's Newsnight on Tuesday and that's no mean feat because it's usually the other way round even with media savvy politico's.

This latest media effort was shown on Thursday, just ahead of the big Luton demo today. I had to grab it from YouTube and then spent many hours trying to get it to display in it's proper 16:9 format. I then edited out most of the idiots at the end because I was sick and tired of hearing the same drivel from the usual idiots. I put up some captions to illustrate the point. The Labour MEP and the Iman had nothing to say but the usual taqiyya.

Read This. It says it all.

Below is the speech given at today’s (30th Oct 2010) demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston.

My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society.

And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam.

Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil.

But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance.

And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler. Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war.

Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth.

Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.

After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so.

And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us.

Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison.

Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam.

Islam literally means submission. What kind of a religion can possibly call itself submission?

Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest?

Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal.

But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well.

It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller.

And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this!

But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach?

When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam?

When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam?

When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families’ honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”.

In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam.

And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom.

The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails?

Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights.

This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.”

And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason.

“Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace?

We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us.

And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically.

In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other.

Our children are told to celebrate multiculturalism and Islam, without being told the real history of violent expansionist Islam.

Instead, they are told that their own history, their religion, their culture, their traditions, their very being, is just a litany of imperialism, racism, murder and slavery. This is a proven psychological technique designed to render an enemy helpless, or to quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “in order to destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”

Any government that does this to its own people, to its own children, is a government that deserves, manifestly deserves, to be overthrown.

Can anyone really argue that a government that praises the foreign invader whilst psychologically and legally stripping away the defences of its people is a government that is not guilty of treason?

Now here we come to a more uplifting part of this depressing monologue, because in this part of the battle we are advancing. Slowly, admittedly, but relentlessly, and I think we are now unstoppable.

Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands, René Stadtkewitz in Germany, whose immediate popularity caused Angela Merkel to make an abrupt U-turn and denounce Multiculturalism.

The Sweden Democrats, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, and in England we await a political movement to pick up the baton from the rapidly growing English Defence League.

And that growth can only accelerate. As more and more people become aware of Islam and become aware of the depth of treason perpetrated by their liberal rulers, and most importantly, as people lose their fear of being labelled a racist — which was a label specifically designed to strip us of resistance against a racially designated invader who uses race as a weapon.

In fact, let us deal with this “racist” label right now. It is not racist to defend your country against an obvious and growing threat. It is not racist to defend your culture, your heritage, and your traditions. It is not racist to work to ensure a democratic future for your children and grandchildren.

If you choose not to defend your country, your culture and the democratic future of your children, then you may well pat yourselves on the back in your non-racist champagne socialist cocktail bars in Islington; you may well love other people’s anti-racist credentials almost as much as you love your own; but there is no getting away from the label I have for you.

You are a traitor and a betrayer of your country, a betrayer of your culture, and a betrayer of our yet unborn children.

And you are a racist, indeed a genocidal racist. Young native Europeans will become a demographic ethnic minority within their own homelands if immigration rates and birth rates stay the way they are for just one more generation.

This can politely be called population replacement. More crudely, it is bloodless genocide.

The United Nations is very clear on this. Their definition of genocide is as follows:

Quote.

Article 2.

In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group.

We have been betrayed.

And one of the saddest aspects of this betrayal is the effect it has had on those old ex-warriors who fought for their countries in recent living memory.

Ex-Spitfire pilot Alex Henshaw died three years ago. He was acutely aware of the political betrayal of his country. He said:

“I feel extreme emotional sadness for the young men I knew that gave their lives willingly for a cause in which we all believed. And I often say to myself that if those young boys would come down now and walk through the villages, through the towns and through the cities and look around and see what is happening to us, they would say somewhere along the line we have been betrayed.”

Yes, Mr. Henshaw, I am afraid you have, and all of you socialist/liberal/left-wing people need to know what you have done.

You need to take a walk around your cities, towns and villages, take a look at the hundreds of thousand of graves standing as testament to the ultimate sacrifice made by our young men in order that you may live in a liberal democracy today.

You need to understand that this a not just betrayal, but a triple betrayal:

*The betrayal of all our old soldiers whose sacrifice granted us freedom,

* The betrayal of my generation who you threaten to imprison if we defend our inherited freedom, and

* The betrayal of our yet unborn, who, unless we stop it seem set to inherit a country racked with tribal and religious hatred, which must inevitably lead to a continental scale multicultural war that will make the break-up of Yugoslavia look like a bun-fight.

And, of course, it is also the betrayal of freedom and democracy.

Because freedom and democracy did not just magically appear. They evolved over two and a half thousand years, rooted in Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian ancestry. And were fought for and defended with much blood and sacrifice.

Democracy and freedom are not the personal possessions of socialist politicians to be handed away, without our agreement, to the descendants of a 7th century desert warlord, who view our attachment to democracy as just a weakness to be used against us.

I do not blame Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims are just doing what it says in the book.

But I do blame our politicians. There are two sides in this civilisational stand-off, and our politicians have sided with the enemy.

So I say to them:
You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion?

You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam.

But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law.

And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.

You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:

We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!

Keep an eye on Paul Weston, he's THE ONE the UK need so badly!!

cross posted with CommonSense
and Hat Tipped there to Gates of Vienna

Watch This

Leader of the EDL at Leicester tells of police harassment of himself and his family



Reports of the EDL being racists and violent thugs are being put out by the antifa, marxist opposition. They would do that wouldn't they? Let's remember that the same applies in the US with the libtard dems applying the same worn out accusations against the Tea Party supporters by manipulating the MSM and "creating" photo ops.

Got it? OK. Now let's see how the establishment are dealing with the EDL but letting the violent opposition off scot free. The EDL are not perfect by any means but right now they are all we have in the UK to oppose islamification.

US Navy Gets it Right

Why Help Pakistan?

I am hearing on the media the aid agencies complaining that the disaster relief aid for Pakistan is miserly compared to other disasters. They are coming up with a myriad of reasons but they are all missing what I believe is the real reason:

Lot's of enlightened people in the West, myself included, recognise that if Pakistan were washed into the ocean the world would be a more peaceful place for it. The majority of the muslim population would like to see sharia law implemented which means they are hardliners in the Muslim world AND they would wish to take our freedom away with a worldwide caliphate.

In the UK the Pakistani Muslims will be a huge problem in time as they outbreed us unless something drastic is done. If the situation is left as it is we will lose our country our freedom and maybe even our lives. Pakistani Muslims are the biggest threat to our future - unless you are a liberal leftard with your head in the sand - so why should we donate to their homeland?

As for the floods I say bring it on. Heartless? Yes, but so are their kind as they hack off the heads of infidels slowly.

The floods that have engulfed Pakistan over the last week are a mega disaster and the world needs to mount a mega response to ensure the millions affected get the help they need, international aid agency Oxfam said today as it called for a “gear shift” in the response to the crisis.

Almost 14 million people are now affected by the floods in Pakistan according to latest figures, and that number is likely to increase with water now surging south into Sindh Province. The UN now describes the floods as the world’s “worst” current disaster but compared with other recent crises the speed of the response to Pakistan’s flooding has been sluggish. As of 9 August 2010, according to the UN’s financial tracking system, less than $45m has been committed, plus $91m pledged, which breaks down to $3.20 committed per flood affected person.

This pales in comparison with the amounts committed to other crises.

In the first 10 days after Cyclone Nargis, which affected 2.4m when it struck off the coast of Myanmar, almost $110m was committed (and $109m pledged) in the first 10 days. This works out at $46 committed per person.

Likewise some $742m was committed to Haiti 10 days after the quake and $920 million pledged. Some 1.5m were directly affected by the quake, which works out at $495 per person, in funds committed, in the first 10 days.

Neva Khan, Oxfam country director in Pakistan said:

“The rains are continuing and each hour that passes the flooding is multiplying misery across the entire country. Swathes of Pakistan are still under-water and people have seen homes, shops, schools and crops flattened. The world must not leave these people stranded. This is a mega disaster and it needs a mega response.”

To date only five donors – USA, Australia, UK, Italy and Kuwait – have committed or pledged more than $5m in new funding in response to the crisis. Read it all

A further thought: Why don't the Muslims donate - only Kuwait on the list.

Muslim gay men forced into marriage by families that refuse to accept their sexuality

Don't know what to say about this . . . .

Gay men are increasingly being forced into marriage because their families refuse to accept their homosexuality, the Government revealed today.

The Forced Marriage Unit says there has been a surge such cases over the past year.

The number of contacts with the Whitehall agency concerning male victims increased from 134 in 2008 to 220 in 2009, a rise of 65 per cent.

But officials believe the figures are still only 'the tip of an iceberg' as the problem is under-reported concerning both sexes.

Men accounted for just 14 per cent of the total number of forced marriage cases, numbering 1,682, referred to the FMU last year.

It is estimated that in reality there are more like 10,000 incidents of forced marriage involving British nationals each year and that up to 20 per cent are men.

The large majority of cases involve families from south Asia, particularly Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

Victims are often locked up, subjected to physical and sexual violence and forcibly removed to other countries if they refuse to comply with their families' wishes.

Men in particular frequently face being forced to marry because their families refuse to accept their homosexuality.

Other cases can revolve around property issues, securing visas or other family expectations.

Most victims are aged between 15 and 24.

But the FMU, a joint unit of the Foreign Office and Home Office, is concerned that many people fail to realise that it is an issue that even affects men.

With the approach of the summer holidays, when the danger of young people being taken out of the country against their will is particularly high, ministers sought to raise awareness.

Support is available from caseworkers at the FMU and victims, or people acting on their behalf, can apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order.

Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne said the Government wanted to help communities address the issue and urged victims to speak out.

"Boys and men who are forced into marriage find it harder to ask for help than women, but we are urging males affected by forced marriage to speak out and seek the help that is available to them," he said.

"Of course, women make up the majority of forced marriage victims and over 1,400 reports of women facing this abuse were dealt with by the unit last year.

Barack Obama's 'anti-British' rhetoric

U.S. President meets families of workers killed in rig blast

Boris Johnson: BP is paying 'very heavy price' for an accident

UK pension funds hit as shares plunge 11% before rallying

Obama warns oil giant not to pay shareholder dividend

Anger at President's use of firm's old name - British Petroleum

Warning BP could be forced to compensate other oil firms

David Cameron has bowed to pressure to intervene in the growing row over the BP oil spill crisis and will talk to Barack Obama this weekend, Downing Street said today.

The Prime Minister, who is currently in Kabul, has been under increasing pressure to defend the British-based multinational after a series of outspoken attacks by the U.S. President.

Boris Johnson raised the stakes today by accusing Mr Obama of 'buck-passing' and 'beating up' the oil giant which he insisted was paying a 'very, very, heavy price' for what had been an accident.

Lord Tebbit, a former trade and industry secretary, also suggested Mr Obama was attacking the company to distract from his own administration's impotence in the face of the disaster.

As shares slumped again this morning, experts claimed the U.S. President has 'his boot on the throat' of British pensioners because BP is such a major contributor to UK pension schemes.

Mr Johnson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I do think there's something slightly worrying about the anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America. I would like to see a bit of cool heads rather than endlessly buck-passing and name-calling.

'When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves. It was an accident that took place and BP is paying a very, very heavy price indeed.'

Writing on his website, Lord Tebbit said Mr Obama’s attitude was explicable but ‘despicable’.

‘The whole might of American wealth and technology is displayed as utterly unable to deal with the disastrous spill - so what more natural than a crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political Presidential petulance against a multinational company?,' he said.

Lord Tebbit pointed out that U.S. engineering giant Halliburton was also involved in the events leading up to the Gulf disaster.

And he added: 'It is time that our American were reminded that they sang a different tune when the American company Union Carbide killed many thousands of Indians at Bhopal. Not to mention when the American company Occidental killed 167 people on a North Sea oil rig in 1988.

'At the very least, the President might acknowledge that the company directly responsible for the Gulf disaster was American, not British. He may be holding on to some Democratic Party votes, but he is storing up a great deal of ill will that he might regret at some time.'

Read More

I can tell you that Obama is creating a lot of anger and anti - American sentiment over here because of his Brit bashing over what was after all an accident when Americans and not BP were operating and managing the oil rig.

DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY

This could be interesting . . . .

"Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team.

Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama’s continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed."

Read More>>

This one's for MR

We're well-armed and prepared for civil disorder: America's Tea Party revolution and Obama's biggest battle yet.

Obama - The Third World President

From Mary Ellen Syon, Daily Mail Blogger

Now that President Obama has done enough back-room deals to get the Democrats' health care legislation through the House of Representatives, he can resume making plans for a visit to his childhood home, Indonesia. The trip was on for this week, but the White House cancelled it so Obama could stay in Washington to push through the Bill.

Once he lands at Jakarta, capital of the world's largest Muslim state, he probably won't make the same mistake he made a few years ago in Kenya, when he let himself be photographed wearing a turban. Still, he may find it hard to resist the urge to go native.

One of the reasons a lot of Americans find Obama oddly foreign is that he had an oddly foreign childhood: his formative years were spent in Indonesia. His half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, was born there. The rest of Obama's childhood was spent in Honolulu, a Pacific Ocean capital soaked in East Asian culture.

What's this got to do with Britain, or indeed with Europe? Plenty. Obama is the first US president who was raised without cultural or emotional or intellectual ties to either Britain or Europe. The British and the Europeans have been so enchanted with 'America's first black president' that they haven't been able to see what he really is: America's first Third World president.

If you doubt it, remember the kick in the teeth he gave Britain over the Falklands just a few weeks ago. Obama had his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, fly to Buenos Aires to give American support to President Kirchner's call for international negotiations over the Falklands. Amazing. What was more amazing is that all we've heard out of Number 10 and the Foreign Office since then is that it doesn't mean anything.

Oh, yes it does, and Washington insiders know it does.

I've just been in touch with Dr James Lucier, a former US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff Director, about all this. He tells me: 'Culturally, Obama detests Great Britain. He sent the bust of Churchill back without a fig leaf of an excuse. He insulted the Queen and the Prime Minister, giving them ridiculous gifts.' At one point, 'he refused to meet the prime minister.'

Here is what is happening, though the British Government seems oblivious of it. The Obama administration is ready to dump the Old World in pursuit of the One World.

Britain is being dumped. The special relationship, whatever is left of it, is over. Britain losing control of the Falklands to Argentina would just be collateral damage.

But France is being dumped, too. Obama's ostentatious refusal to have dinner with President Sarkozy during his visit to France last year was no accident. Rather than meet the French president, Obama went off to a restaurant with his wife Michelle.

Germany is being dumped. Obama has been little more than dismissive of Chancellor Merkel. Russia in turn will be waved aside.

Most spectacularly of all, the European Union has now been comprehensively dumped. The American president has refused to attend what is supposed to be a US-EU Madrid summit in May.

What we have shaping up, but what the British Government doesn't yet grasp, is that Obama has a conscious policy of down-grading America's relationship with, first, Britain and then with the rest of Europe.

He believes that the US -- yes, his own country -- and Britain, and the leading European countries, too, for that matter, are imperial powers who ruthlessly exploited the Third World for their own profit.

And Obama is America's first Third World president.

Forget Obama's Chicago black cadence. It is a fake. He copied from the kind of black preachers that were unknown to him until he was a grown man and inventing his political image.

What the Obama administration has near-wiped from the president's personal history is that his only childhood links with America were as a schoolboy in a fashionable private school in Asia-dominated Hawaii, where he was raised by his white, bank executive grandmother.

Chicago is not Obama's homeland. It never was his formative influence. The president's world view is more aligned with that of Indonesia.

You can be sure the gift Obama gives the President of Indonesia will be something more than the dvd box-set of old Hollywood movies he gave to Gordon Brown. The US president's manner on the trip to Indonesia will be more the manner he showed to the King of Saudi Arabia last year. The king received a deep bow, something never done by any US president before. Obama also kow-towed to the Emperor of Japan and to the Chinese premier.

What's going on? According to Dr Lucier, Obama's policy is to disestablish the United States, Great Britain and Europe from the hegemony of world power, and elevate in their place the hegemony of the Third World under international governance.

Remember, Obama is a deracinated individual. He has no roots. He is a man from an Asian-Pacific background bred to no admiration for the ancient constitutional history which, until now, has reached across the Atlantic to bind America and Britain.

The president actually feels that the US Constitution, which grew out of Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights, is 'inadequate.'

Indeed, Obama has stated that, because the US Constitution guarantees only 'negative rights' -- that is, establishes what the US Government may not do to individuals or to the sovereign states -- instead of giving people guarantees of food, shelter education and health care and the rest, it is 'inadequate.'

That is one reason he has worked so hard to get the health care legislation through Congress. It is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Already, the attorneys-general of Florida and South Carolina are poised to challenge its constitutionality in court. At least another dozen state attorneys-general may join in the suit.

Obama has made it clear he despises both the US Constitution and the British tradition from which it springs.

His decision to send his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to Argentina to give support to President Kirchner is part of this anti-British atttitude. Mrs Clinton has supported President Kirchner's demands that the fate of the Falklands be decided by the United Nations decolonisation committee.

It is all part of the same Obama world-view. This interference in South American affairs is not part of the old yankee -- yanqui -- imperialism. The important thing to note is that the Obama administration is not stepping in to decide the fate of the Falklands itself.

No, it wants to turn the dispute over to a Third World-dominated instrument of international governance, the UN.

One might imagine that Obama is willing to back Argentina over the Falklands because he thinks America has something to gain from it. That is not the reason. There is no profit for the US in cultivating the Latino presidents, and there is no particular policy to do so.

Rather, US support for Kirchner's demand that the Falklands question be turned over to the UN is just another opportunity for Obama to strengthen the ideological world system which he hopes will one day overwhelm the old Anglo-Saxon Common Law America.

His vision is for the US to abandon its Constitution and its laws, which are tied to Britain, the country for which he has shown such disdain.

UK Mosque: The People Win

Some good news at last from the land of dhimmified politicians. At last the people are fighting back and showing that they are no dhimmies.

Victory was being celebrated yesterday in the leafy avenues and Victorian villas of Camberley.
In a triumph for local democracy, a plan to build a huge £3 million mosque with two 100ft minarets, which would have been visible from Sandhurst Royal Military Academy, was thrown out on Wednesday night by the town's councillors.

A thousand people from the affluent Surrey town queued to get into the meeting, some waiting for hours from 9am to get in.

They waved placards declaring: 'Camberley Says No', 'Hands Off Our Heritage' and 'We Want Justice.' When the result was announced, just before 11pm, there were jubilant roars inside the public meeting - and from the crowds outside.

Protesters claimed the plan for the mosque in the heart of Camberley was an inflammatory act of provocation by the Muslim community, intended to show their cultural superiority.

In return, the mosque's supporters accused them of being "racist and hostile" to the Islamic way of life.

They would say that wouldn't they?

Here was an extraordinary clash between Christians and Muslims in the heart of the Surrey commuter belt.

The mosque plan had been devised by a radical Islamic group which supports polygamy, the amputation of thieves' hands, the veiling of women, and the killing of non-Muslims if they refuse to convert to Islam.

During a planning battle lasting months, 6,000 people signed a petition objecting to the new mosque, which was to be built on the site of a listed former church primary school where many locals had been educated.

Local Church leaders weighed in, saying the building would create antagonism for many years in a part of the country where only 2 per cent of the population are Muslim.

One vicar declared that the mosque proposal was a 'supremacist' act; another warned it was a 'political statement' rather than a religious one by the Islamic community.

Of course, this was denied by local Muslims, but the battle soon spread. Read more>>

I say bring it on. Ignore the politicians and their ostrich like talk of diversity and inclusion. With the alien moonbat cult let them know we say enough and no more.

U.S. values are no longer civilised values.

A hard hitting piece from Peter Oborne of the Daily Mail:

Ever since World War I, there has been one solid plank of British foreign policy - the special relationship with the U.S. Two basic calculations lay behind this decision to stick with America through thick and thin.

The first was that we believed it stood for everything that was decent and true: freedom under law, democracy, human rights, freedom of expression.

There was also a more cynical consideration. Successive prime ministers have maintained that our selfish national interest benefited from standing blindly behind the U.S.

The belief has been that this country's security will benefit from defence and intelligence co-operation. However, a number of recent events have led me to ask an important question: has the time come to ditch our oldest and strongest ally?

For evidence is growing that the U.S. can no longer be regarded as a loyal or trustworthy friend of Britain.

Even more worryingly, it's no longer clear that Barack Obama's administration represents the decent and humane values of which Britain has long been so proud.

As a result, standing by the traditional transatlantic alliance is beginning to be damaging to our reputation overseas and to our national interest.

For example, consider the appalling revelations contained in this week's speech to the House of Lords by the former MI5 spy chief Elizabeth Manningham-Buller.

Dame Elizabeth shockingly disclosed that U.S. officials had deceived Britain over their use of torture following their capture of the Al Qaeda commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003.
She said that when she asked why he was talking so freely to his captors, she was cynically told he was boasting because he was proud of what he'd done.

The truth, she later found out, was that he had been subjected to the controversial torture technique known as waterboarding.

'It wasn't until after I retired that I read that he had been waterboarded 160 times,' she said. 'The Americans were keen to conceal from us what they were doing.'

This remarkable admission proves there was no trust in the relationship between British and U.S. intelligence chiefs - in complete contrast to the easy-going and harmonious relationship of popular myth.

This deception by the White House made Britain complicit in its barbaric and illegal behaviour, and thereby inflicted deep damage to our reputation around the globe.

Moreover, this revelation follows the controversial role played by the U.S. in the case of the terror suspect and torture victim Binyam Mohamed.

We now know that when U.S. officials leaned on British ministers to bring pressure to bear on our courts not to disclose information about his mistreatment (arguing that it would jeopardise the sharing of intelligence between the two countries), ironically, the same information had already been released by a U.S. court.

The British court's decision to release that information was said to be one of the reasons behind the Obama administration's coldness to Britain's concerns when Argentine forces recently started to menace the Falkland Islands in an uncomfortable echo of their 1982 invasion.

Britain was surely entitled to expect President Obama to come to the aid of an ally which, alone among European nations, has stood loyally alongside the U.S. in its two greatest conflicts of recent times - Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thousands of British soldiers have been injured in these hideous conflicts and many hundreds killed.

But their sacrifice, the support of the British public and the loyalty of successive prime ministers (despite the huge problems it causes in the polls) has apparently counted for nothing with the U.S..

Obama's team made the coldhearted calculation to stay neutral in the Argentine standoff, thus seeming to condone the menace to dearly held British interests and citizens.

Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised.

For the U.S. is also the country that has launched a long and deeply shameful campaign of persecution against Gary McKinnon, a British citizen who hacked into Pentagon computers in a misguided quest for information about UFOs.

The U.S. authorities' campaign to extradite him to face trial there is devoid of all humanity, decency and compassion. American prosecutors have been told many times that they risk inflicting the most appalling mental damage on McKinnon, who has Asperger's.

They have been told that a psychiatric report has warned that suicide was an 'almost certain inevitability' should he be extradited and that he is, beyond all doubt, not an Al Qaeda spy.
Sadly, in this instance, the Americans seem to be driven by sheer vindictiveness over a dysfunctional young man who humiliated the Pentagon.

Another case of a different order, but indicative of the strain between London and Washington, concerns the fate of Cadbury.

For almost two centuries, it has been one of Britain's proudest companies and a model of corporate governance. Yet it was the subject of a vicious take-over battle by U.S. giant Kraft Foods (which was advised by the amoral U.S. investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley). Within weeks, in a shameful breach of promise, Kraft announced it was to close the Cadbury plant in Somerdale, near Bristol, with the loss of 400 jobs. It is also likely that the company pension scheme will come under threat.

Yet Kraft chief executive Irene Rosenfeld has contemptuously turned down a request to be questioned by a committee of MPs who are investigating the takeover.

Many blame this new era of anti-Britishness on the election 16 months ago of President Obama, whose anti-colonialism has been traced to stories of his grandfather having been imprisoned and tortured by the British in Kenya in the Fifties.

For many years I have been a passionate admirer of the U.S. and never had the slightest doubt that Britain was utterly right to stand by the Americans in the long Cold War against the Soviet Union.

But I have come to believe - and it pains me terribly to say this - that U.S. values are no longer civilised values. Read it all>>

No Scan, No Fly

Muslim women who refused to take 'naked' full-body scan are barred from Manchester to Pakistan flight

A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight to Pakistan after refusing to go through a new 'naked' full-body scanner at Manchester Airport on religious grounds.

Her companion also declined to be scanned for 'medical reasons'.

The women were travelling together to Islamabad when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen after checking-in at Terminal Two at the airport.

An estimated 15,000 people have already passed through the scanners, with the pair the first passengers to refuse a scan.

Both told airport staff they were not willing to be scanned. They were warned they would not be allowed to board the Pakistan International Airlines flight if they refused.

The pair decided they would rather forfeit their £400 tickets and left the airport with their luggage.

The £80,000 scanners were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airports on February 5.

The X-ray machines allow security staff to see a 'naked' image of passengers to show up hidden weapons and explosives, but it has attracted criticism for also showing clear outlines of passengers' genitals.

Manchester Airport confirmed the passengers had refused to be scanned but said it had received no complaint from the women.

However, civil liberties campaigners say the incident could form the basis of a legal test case to challenge the use of the Rapiscan device in airports.

Alex Deane, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said the organisation would represent the women if they wished to challenge the decision in court.

He said: 'People shouldn't have to sacrifice their health, their faith, their dignity, or their privacy in order to fly.

And people should not have to sacrifice their safety, indeed their very lives because some Muslims refuse to be scanned.

Simple, no scan, no fly. Now watch for the compensation and legal BS that will paid for by the taxpayer.

A belief in man-made climate change is a 'fundamentalist religion'

So says Prof Ian Plimer, climate change sceptic. In my view his arguments against CO2 being the cause of global warming are the most convincing so far.

1. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate above 50 parts per million (ppm).

Prof Plimer rejects the argument that the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial (1750AD) level of about 270 ppm to today's level of about 380 ppm, has begun to affect the world's change.

In an interview with ABN Newswire in June he said: "Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation."

On Thursday he said: "If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between CO2 and temperature; there is not."

Water vapour is responsible for about 96 per cent of the greenhouse effect, he has argued, a theme consistent among climate change sceptics.

Most climate scientists argue there is a correlation between CO2 and global mean temperatures, pointing to evidence from air trapped deep in the polar ice that gives a snapshot of the atmosphere thousands of years ago.

2. Extraterrestrial events like solar flares have driven major climate change episodes in the geological past

He has said: "It's got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it's about what happens in the galaxy."
Promotional material for his controversial book Heaven + Earth reads: "Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth's orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond."

Most climate change scientists argue that changes in the atmosphere have been fundamental to changing global temperatures throughout the planet's history.

3. Global warming should be welcome because humans 'thrive' in a warmer planet
read more

4. Climate change scientists push global warming theory because it is good for their careers

That sounds about right read more

5. A belief in man-made climate change is a 'fundamentalist religion'

He has described people's belief in anthropogenic climate change as "a fundamentalist religion adopted by urban atheists looking to fill a yawning spiritual gap plaguing the West".

Well. I'll be . . . . didn't we have a court case just a week or so ago when someone won a court case over unfair dismissal on the grounds that his beliefs in global warming etc were his religion?

I'll tell you who you are

In response to the post "Who the fuck am I"

If you are taking the piss out of us Brits who are for the EDL you are way off the mark - stupid as well by writing about white supremacy etc. You will find more about white supremacy in your own country - and a long history of it. All we want is to stop Muslim supremacy for fucks sake.

The purpose of the EDL as I see it is to

(1)wake up the middle classes to islamification of England

(2)force the media to report the issue and so accomplish (1)

(3)make the politicians aware that they had better take notice that they are pissing us off.

You may notice that NONE of the crap that you wrote is included in the above.

What do you think we should do, keep blogging? Roll over like the rest of the dhimmies and let the Muslims take our culture, rich history, freedom, and lives away from us?

SOMEONE HAS TO DO SOMETHING FOR FUCKS SAKE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT BUTT OUT AND WORRY ABOUT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING TO YOUR COUNTRY.

So who are you? Someone who can't see the wood for the trees, that's who you are. Normally gun toting, gungho, typical Yank but suddenly the typical sarcastic type who is worried about our right wing for fucks sake when he should be worried about his very own left wing and it's Islamification of America.

Oh, I just realised that when the Muslims look like they are taking over you can all get out your guns (80 million gun owners) and take your country back. Sorry, but we don't have that advantage over here. We have to try to stop it getting to that point.

cross posted with Commonsense Against Islam

This theory drives the fed

Epaminondas asked a question. Here is the answer. Stay with it, skip the first minute and get to the heart of the matter. It's a layman's guide. Every dollar deposited in a bank is expanded into a house of cards by a factor of nine. yes, the banks turn a dollar into nine dollars of 'make believe' money.

The Terrorist Sympathizing Kennedy

Obama is apparantly 'heartbroken' at the death of Edward Kennedy. Gordon Brown said 'Kennedy would be mourned in 'every continent'. Tony Blair, who worked closely with Senator Kennedy during the Northern Ireland peace talks, said he was 'a figure who inspired admiration, respect and devotion not just in America, but around the world'.

And so the schmaltzy tributes roll in like a syrup tsunami. There are some who will not have any shred of regret at the passing of this 'supposedly' great man; the relatives of those killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland during his days of supporting the nationalist cause for instance.

Now before any terrorist sympathising Americans get hot under the collar about this just remember this: Northern Ireland was not part of a British Empire and British troops were not an occupying army. Northern Ireland was and is just as much part of the United Kingdom as England, Wales and Scotland. Yes, the originally Scottish protestants occupied Northen Ireland - or the six provinces - some hundreds of years ago, land they presumably took from the native Irish just as the American settlers took land from the Native Americans.

As I said, the majority population were protestants, who under 'normal' democratic circumstances would have the right to retain their way of life and not become a minority in an alien Catholic Ireland. If you still don't get it think of Kosovo or say a US state with a minority Muslim population starting a terror Jihad against the majority in order join the worldwide calipate. Got it now?

They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead but the Daily Mail thinks otherwise:

Sometimes it is right to speak ill of the dead. The truth matters, even when it is deeply unsavoury. The truth about Ted Kennedy is certainly unsavoury.

Not that you'd know it from yesterday's tributes, dominated by sycophantic humbug.

Gordon Brown was 'proud to have counted him as a friend and proud that the United Kingdom recognised his service earlier this year with the award of an honorary knighthood'.

Proud? He should be ashamed. Kennedy was a formidable and Machiavellian political operator in the U.S., but he was no friend of Britain. In fact, he was one of our most committed and unrelenting enemies on Capitol Hill.

In his anti-British sentiments, he took after his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was unable to hide his bigoted views during a shameful spell as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.

Ted did his father proud. As a politician dependent on Irish-American votes, this master of empty rhetoric had no scruples about spreading the bitter message of Irish republicanism, especially if there was an election at stake.

Gordon Brown would not be ashamed he would be proud because he and his Marxist cronies are busy dismantling our society in preparation for the Islamic takeover and so an enemy of Britain is a friend of Gordon's seemingly. Why else would he make sleazy Edward Kennedy an honourary knight? Must be another reason for abolishing the honours system.

Talking about sleazy the Daily Mail really put the boot in:

He reeked of drink by nine in the morning and could be relied on to be bawling drunk at four in the afternoon. In Washington's top La Brasserie restaurant, he once threw a waitress over a table in a private room and tried to have sex with her. Read more.

So as I said, not a shred of regret from Yours Truly, the Daily Mail, and many more people. Oh, and just in case someone wants to remind me; yes, he did have 'some' involvement in the peace talks but that does not counterbalance his unbridled support for the republican cause earlier.