Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Watcher's Question -- How Would You Improve Race Relations In America?

Each week the Watcher's Council holds a forum. This week's topic is "how would you improve race relations in America." Having been invited to respond, here is the extended version of my answer. A shorter version will appear at the Watcher's forum.

Update: The Forum has now been posted. There are several very good answers to the question. Do pay the forum a visit.

There will always be some degree of tribalism, it being human nature. But racism today is largely absent from this country. Those who harbor "racist" views are relegated to the very fringes of society. Virtually all Americans of whatever color or political persuasion would like to see nothing more than blacks fully embracing the opportunities life in this nation offers, and enjoying the fruits of their efforts equally with all others. So why are race relations problematic today, and why, by all metrics, are black Americans worse off than others? It can all be summed up in one picture:



This picture is from one of Rev. Al's protests a few years ago. The sign the woman is holding up says everything. Racism is no longer a real issue in society, but the left must maintain the canard that it is. Blacks must be made to see themselves as permanent victims of racism and as being championed by the race hustlers of the left. Moreover, it's important to note the poor grammar used on the sign. It screams out that the woman who wrote it has been failed by whatever schools she attended, thus limiting her opportunities to thrive in America.

So with that in mind, the first thing to understand about race relations is that the left are invested in seeing that the "racial divide" remains as wide as possible. This is political, as it has been since the early 60's, when the marxist "new left" -- our modern left -- made common cause with the heirs of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. They morphed that movement from an effort to build a color blind society with equality of opportunity for all into a color centric, unified block of people who are fed daily a tautology that they are, and will ever be, permanently victimized by white conservatives. Actual history of support for blacks and civil rights was ignored or rewritten, and it was done so effectively that, to this day, blacks vote 90% as a block for Democrats. If the modern left ever loses even a portion of that block of support, it would be catastrophic. While quite literally everyone I know on the right would like to heal the "racial divide," for the left, their very political survival depends on using it to "divide and conquer."

Thus do you have Rep. John Lewis claiming that any effort to insure the integrity of the vote, something that should be of greater importance to blacks than any other racial group, is actually an effort to deprive blacks of their right to vote. Thus do you have a man at the pinnacle of academia, Harvard Prof. Henry Gates, and other black intellectuals teaching their students about critical race theory, color blind racism, white privilege, and to believe that black slavery was an unpardonable sin such that, irrespective of today's reality, they should keep their two hundred year old racial grievances alive until all blacks are paid reparations. Thus do you have the Department of Justice using disparate impact theory to claim that racism is rampant, despite the fact that they can find no actual incidents of racism in any individual instance. For the modern left, it is critical to keep blacks beliving that all of America today is nothing more than 1954 Selma, Alabama writ large.

The second thing to understand is that blacks have paid a heavy price indeed for their Faustian bargain with the left. By virtually every metric, while the lives of blacks have improved, and while many black individuals have been able to embrace the opportunities this country has to offer, a very substantial portion of blacks have not. It is obscene that, in America, some 25% of blacks live in poverty. It is obscene that, where in 1965, less than 30% of black children were born into a single parent family, that number is now over 70%. It is obscene that that 30 to 40 percent of inner city kids don’t graduate from school, and a very substantial number who do graduate are functionally illiterate. It is obscene that blacks are seven times more likely to commit violent crime than other races. And it is obscene that these problems are cyclical. Nothing the left has done for blacks has broken this cycle, and it all portends to get much worse as cities, where large numbers of blacks congregate and many of whom take public sector jobs, fall into bankruptcy and economic chaos from the failure of the blue political / economic model.

The third thing to understand is that the left takes blacks for granted. In the pantheon of left wing victim groups, perhaps no group gets more attention and ink, but falls lower on the scale of importance. No two things would perhaps benefit the black lower and middle class than good entry level jobs and better education. But those needs run up against the reality that unions, and especially teachers unions, are the financial foundation of the left. Thus did you have Obama, almost in his first days as President, end the school voucher program in the nation's worst performing school district. Thus do you have the D.C. city council voting to, in essence, keep Walmart from opening stores in their district. And thus do you have Obama on the cusp of legalizing millions of Central and South American illegal aliens -- nearly all of whom will be competing for jobs with the black lower and middle class -- in order to gain Decomcrat voters. When it comes to blacks, the left feels no need to balance their needs against those of leftwing economic interests because they have the only thing they need from blacks -- their votes -- already locked up.

The fourth thing to understand is the race card. The race card has been incredibly powerful tool, and the left has not hesitated to use it whenever possible since the 1960's. It has been used to silence all debate and end careers. It serves the triparte purpose of mining white guilt, keeping the focus off of the real problems in the black community, and keeping blacks focused on nursing historical racial grievances. How many blacks today see imaginary racism as their greatest threat? And when was the last time conservatives made an actual, concerted push to reach out to blacks? The answer to that last question is never. The RNC at the national level spends next to nothing on reaching out, having written off the black vote since 1964.

So, how to improve race relations? The answer in today's post-racial America starts and ends with politics. Conservatives must convince blacks that they have their best interests at heart -- that we see them as equal members in the melting pot. Conservatives must also convince blacks that the solutions we propose will, in the long term, work to their advantage. When conservatives call for the end to teacher's unions, no single group of people would benefit more from that then blacks. When conservative call for an end to, or at least a lowering of, the minimum wage, no single group of people would benefit more from that then blacks. When conservatives call for altering laws that decrease the stability of the family unit, no single group of people would benefit more from that then blacks. Conservative must make their case, both that they have black Americans interests firmly at heart, and that blacks have been sorely used by the left.

But to do that, conservatives have to break through a wall of lies and propaganda from the left, at the national level, but most importantly, at the local level. They need to appear at every black forum to make their case, from the NAACP to Howard University to the inner city schools and the local black churches, despite the fact that they will be buried under an avalanche of race cards. And they need to become vociferous in immediately responding to the race card whenever it is played. All of that requires determination, money, and conviction. Rand Paul has flirted with it, and my hat is off to him for at least making some efforts in this regard, but it needs to become a focus for conservatives and Republicans alike, at all levels. That and only that is how you will improve race relations in America.





Read More...

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Republicans, Immigration, The Constitution, & Is It Time For A Third Party Yet?



President Obama, with his Immigration plans, has brought us to the point of a Constitutional crisis. He is unilaterally making new law with his plan to give millions of illegal aliens social security numbers, and work permits, and apparently, retroactively available Earned Income Tax credits. (It's hard to buy loyalty without taxpayer cash, of course). Regardless of the policy, whether one thinks it right or wrong, it is the President's unilateral act that must be the focus.

The Presidents immigration plan is not "executive discretion," its legislation that, per Art. 1 Sec. of our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to authorize. It is a textbook act of tyranny of the kind over which we fought a Revolution. If this is allowed to stand, it will be the single most corrosive act taken in oppression of our "liberties" since our founding. And as a practical matter, it is an act that threatens long term repercussions for our economy and politics.

Fortunately for this nation, we just elected the largest Republican House majority in a century and gave Republicans a comfortable majority in the Senate. Surely, they will act decisively to check this act of tyranny. They have full control of the public purse. And yet . . . within the past few days, the House and Senate have passed bills fully funding Obama's immigration orders. The roll call for the House vote is here. It was House Speaker Boehner's choice to bring a clean bill to a vote, and the vote succeeded 257 to 167, with 75 Republicans voting for approval.

This has been a supreme act of treachery and cowardice by the Republican leadership and by all who supported these votes.

The Republican Party can no longer be relied upon to protect the Constitution or the interests of this nation. We must now rely on the Courts to correct this obscenity, but given the partisan and compliant nature of our Courts, that is a forlorn hope indeed.

It is time to support a third party. It is the last remaining peaceful alternative.







Read More...

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Wolf Bites



Standing Athwart (AP) History: College Board AP U.S. History Standards Would Teach US History Through The Lens Of the Oppressed versus the Oppressor

Obama, Reid & Pelosi Makes Four: Bush Defends His Support For Immigration & Common Core

Go Green, Rev Your SUV: Carbon Dioxide Greening The Planet

The Left's Continued Drive To Do Away With The Judeo-Christian Religion: South Carolina college scrutinized for 'biblical' stance on homosexuality

Ummm, No, Don't Think So: Megan McCardle Thinks It's Time To Give Jonathan Gruber A Break

That Was Fast: A Brief History Of The Speed of Light

Pondering The Unponderable: The Mechanics Of An 800kt Nuclear Explosion Over Manhattan

Doesn't She Look Good In Her DNA?: Constructing A Face From A DNA Sample



Read More...

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Immigration, Liberty, & An Existential Constitutional Crisis



"This meeting can do nothing more to save the country."

Samuel Adams, Dec. 16, 1773

When Samuel Adams said the quote above, he was in a meeting with several thousand other colonists. He had just been informed that the colony's Royal Governor would not allow the East India Company's tea to be returned to Britain. That tea had been shipped on consignment to America and subject to a tax not approved by the colonists. It was the final straw in a Constitutional crisis started by the British themselves in 1761 when they attempted to limit the rights of British citizens living in the American colonies. With Adams's pronouncement, the Revolution was inevitable.

The American Revolution was fought over British liberty. When Americans cried out, "No Taxation Without Representation," they were not innovating new rights. They were demanding the King honor a right of British citizens that dated back to 1215 A.D. and the Magna Carta. After the war, what America produced was a Constitution and Bill of Rights that, but with few changes, memorialized British liberties. Those liberties were neither conservative nor liberal. Rather, they were a series of systems very carefully designed to insure that the will of the people was paramount, that the will of the majority did not become itself a lawless tyranny, and that the powers of government be limited lest it too become a tyranny. To that end, the system the Founders designed very carefully diffused power over the three branches of government.

And for much of the last two and a quarter centuries, the system has worked brilliantly, albeit imperfectly. Policy disputes come and go. So long as they are resolved within the framework of our systems, than all is well. But the system has broken down now, in three very critical ways, two of which pose a long term threat to our liberties and one of which presents an immediate, catastrophic threat. All ultimately revolve around the most fundamental aspect of our system, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution -- that the sole right to pass laws resides in our elected members of Congress.

One break is in the regulatory bureaucracy, addressed here and, most recently, here as regards the FCC plan to take control of the Internet. The second break is our Court system, addressed here. Both of those breaks can be corrected by Congress if and when they find the will to do so.

The most immediate, dangerous and quite likely existential threat to our system of government comes now from our President. For the first time in our Republic's history, we have a President legislating unilaterally. That is the very definition of tyranny.

The President is charged with the duty of executing the laws of our nation. As regards illegal aliens, the laws require that they be deported. How to effect that is legitimately within Presidential discretion. It is Constitutionally problematic that our President should choose to ignore those laws, claiming the right to do as being within his "discretion." But then Obama goes beyond that. He is in the process of affirmatively granting these illegals "the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel.” That's not discretion, that's legislation that can only be lawfully passed by the elected representatives of the people. Obama's actions are a direct threat to our system of liberties.

There is no question why the President is doing what he is -- for immediate political gain. The thought is that these five million plus new immigrants will be left wing voters who will, for a generation or more, alter the political balance of power in this country. I oppose that policy on political grounds, but that is for reasoned debate.

But the President's actions take this orders of magnitude outside the realm of a policy argument. This is a fundamental challenge to our system of government that needs to be fought on every level and by every means. If the President's action is allowed to stand, it marks the date of the end our nation as one based on the Constitution and rule of law. Any politician who does not oppose this action is quite simply a traitor to this nation. And if the legislature cannot stop this action, then we must hope that the Courts finally do their job of protecting the sanctity of the system. For if not, than, truly, we "can do nothing more to save the country."

Update: John Hinderaker at Powerline has some very tongue in cheek proposals for amendments to the Constitution in order to clarify, for the Obama administration, the scope and limits of their powers. The irony is that his proposals are quotes from the Constitution.







Read More...

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Obama Kicks Off The 2014 Election With A Campaign Speech On Immigration

Obama spent his first four years in office doing nothing to push legislation on immigration. Yet today, literally one day after a bipartisan group of Senators announced the framework for immigration reform legislation, Obama gave a speech in Law Vegas congratulating himself on his administration's successes of the past four years related to immigration and to quite magnanimously thank the Senators for adopting his ideas.

Obama's speech was a bid to get out in front of the Senators and claim credit for their legislative attempt at compromise. The bastard is just utterly shameless. Obama's speech was also the first campaign speech of the 2014 campaign. Obama may not be on the ballot, but this was his attempt to make sure Hispanics stay on the plantation in the midterms. Remember, Republicans are "the enemy" of Hispanics according to Obama, and the last thing he wants is them credited with doing anything that might change that narrative in the mind of Hispanics.

As to the specific contents of his speech:

During his speech, Obama plan outlined four major areas for reform, including strengthening border security, cracking down on the hiring of undocumented workers, providing a pathway to citizenship, and streamlining the immigration system.

While these areas dovetail with those laid out in the Senate blueprint, Obama's plan is significantly more liberal, particularly in regards to how it deals with the 11 million undocumented workers currently living in the U.S. While the Senators' compromise would make citizenship contingent on specific improvements in border security, the President has called for an unconditional path to legal citizenship.

That disagreement could be a major sticking point for Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the members of the bipartisan group responsible for Monday's plan.

So far, Republican House Speaker John Boehner has offered little indication of whether it will consider a comprehensive immigration reform package.

"There are a lot of ideas about how best to fix our broken immigration system," Boehner spokesperson Brendan Buck said in response to Obama's speech Tuesday. "Any solution should be a bipartisan one, and we hope the President is careful not to drag the debate to the left and ultimately disrupt the difficult work that is ahead in the House and Senate.”

I will be amazed if Obama and the far left allow any sort of bipartisan compromise to go through on immigration. The last thing they want is to give up a wedge issue to the likes of Marco Rubio or, indeed, any Republican.







Read More...

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

In Norway - An "Extreme Right Winger"

This is now what passes for "radical right wing" in the world today - a person standing up for their native culture in their native land.



As the left tries to remake their world into a socialist nirvana, opening the flood gates to immigration from Islamic countries has been both a tool and a Faustian bargain. The Islamists are, for now, a key part of the secular left's power base. This will not end well, however it ends.

(H/T Crusader Rabbit)

Read More...

Friday, April 30, 2010

What Labour Hath Wrought


LIke the RMS Titanic, the UK's ship of state is sinking. British journalist William Shawcross, writing at the NRO, tells why in a damning indictment of Labour and its 12 year stewardship of Britain. This from Mr. Shawcross:

A Foreign Office diplomat’s proposal to mark the Pope’s visit to Britain with Benedict condoms and by having him bless a gay marriage, open an abortion clinic, and set up a hotline for abused children is a perfect example of the ruling Labour party’s degradation of Britain. Former ambassador Sir Ivor Roberts said on Sunday, “I cannot think of a papal visit anywhere in the world where the host government has had to apologize so profusely and abjectly…for the appalling behavior of one of its officials.”

The truth is that the Foreign Office is no longer fit for purpose after 13 years of New Labour dogmas and a succession of weak if not feckless ministers, in particular the incumbent, David Miliband. Under New Labour, the idea that the Foreign Office should actually fight for British interests is considered passé, if not racist and imperialist. Instead, New Labour has forced Britain to become a mere piece of the bland but increasingly oppressive Bambiland of the E.U., promoting such PC global issues as gay rights (except in Muslim lands) and man-made climate change. . . .

Charles Crawford, a distinguished ambassador who retired early in despair at New Labour’s destruction of British diplomacy, says that in Euroland, “religious pieties plus national identities and symbols, and thus the role of national embassies, are all essential targets of postmodern pastiche.”

He is right — “postmodernism,” the disastrous creed that there is no objective truth and that everything is relative, is the defining characteristic of New Labour. The only force of which Labour (like most E.U. ruling parties) seems to be in awe is Islamism. No Foreign Office official would have drawn up a document mocking Islam. “Postmodernism” is in effect a form of appeasement.

And Gordon Brown has been a disaster for this country. As the all-powerful chancellor, he spent the first ten years of New Labour undermining what might have been sensible Blairite reforms to education, health services, and welfare. Brown and his allies wanted no success for Blair — instead, they simply threw money at unreconstructed and inefficient structures. Billions upon billions of taxpayer money is still being squandered. Perhaps most tragic is the lack of welfare reform. Brown has perpetuated the growth of a wretched, demoralized underclass, unwilling and increasingly unable to work.

At the same time, Labour has continually expanded its client state (70 percent of the workforce in Northern Ireland), which produces nothing. Every person in the U.K. now has £40,000 of national debt to his or her name.

The list of horrors is endless: Brown sold our gold at about the lowest price imaginable, he destroyed the country’s strong pension system, he broke Labour’s promise for a referendum on the E.U.’s Lisbon Treaty, and he has mortgaged Labour back to the trade unions. Harold Wilson had more courage.

Unforgivably, Brown has treated our soldiers with contempt. He has never given the armed forces the resources they needed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many men have died in battle because of inadequate equipment. Recently Brown was forced to correct a lie he told the Chilcott Iraq Enquiry when he claimed that under him, defense spending had risen every year.

Labour boasts that 3 million new jobs have been created — but most went to immigrants. Labour deliberately let immigration rip but never put this controversial policy before the voters in a manifesto. Some leaked Labour documents suggest this was a deliberate policy “to dilute Britishness” and create a new class of voters grateful to Labour.

It is an outrage that the British people were never told the truth about Labour’s immigration free-for-all. Instead, Labour apparatchiks denounced anyone as racist if he or she complained. Those who hate the rise of the British National Party should blame Labour, not the poor white voters whom Labour abandoned and whose lives have been changed forever by uncontrolled immigration. Last week, two London taxi drivers told me that they were going to vote BNP because it’s the only party that cares at all about them.

It’s not just about immigration that they complain. People are grossly offended by the drunken anarchy that Labour has encouraged in so many town centres, with 24-hour drinking, the litter that everyone now feels free to throw, the noise, the anger, the increasing incivility. The quality of millions of peoples’ lives has really suffered.

This government has made countless attacks on our civil liberties and has constantly, carelessly undermined our constitution, which has been carefully crafted over centuries to protect us. The Lord Chancellor has gone, the Law Lords have gone, now the House of Lords, one of the last bastions of independent expertise, is also threatened by Brown, who wants to create an elected clone of the Commons. Nick Clegg would do the same.

Labour’s bullying “multicultural” ideology has been a catastrophe. The government has cosseted extremist Islamist preachers of hatred to a shocking degree. No wonder French security officials talk of “Londonistan.” At the same time, under New Labour’s “progressive” laws, ordinary Christians have been persecuted for their views. Gordon Brown boasts of being “a son of the manse,” but he cares far more about leftist ideology than he does about the religion of his father. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has now taken up the cudgels on behalf of Christianity, its followers, and the fine tradition of British tolerance. It is a measure of the illiberalism of this government that he should have to do so.

“Orwellian” is an overworked phrase, but at least everyone knows that it means something destructive to society. It is a fitting description of the debasement of language, the ignorance of history, and the oppressive culture of “postmodern progress” controlled by thousands of highly paid apparatchiks that Labour has forced upon us. . . .

In his conclusion, Mr. Shawcross calls for people to vote for the Tories as their best option to right Britain's sinking ship of state. Perhaps if anyone heard from David Cameron words similar to Mr. Shawcross, they might be able to do so with some confidence. But by all measures, David Cameron is nothing more than a base political opportunist himself who has, once having promised a referendum on EU membership, reversed himself not long ago. Unfortunately, it appears that the only real conservative party in Britain, the UKIP, is rudderless at the moment. The upcoming election will no doubt be interesting, but I seriously doubt indeed if it will result in a positive change in direction for Britain.

Just to highlight one other point, note that Mr. Shawcross credits "Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury" as being the nation's best defender of Christianity, That is because the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, elevated to his current position by nomination of Labour PM Tony Blair in 2002, has proven utterly worthless in standing up for Christianity and the Anglican Church.

Read More...

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Immigrants, Demagoguery & Expanding The Left Wing Base

Note the similarities of the left, on both sides of the pond.

In Britain, a Labour supporter mentions to Gordon Brown she is concerned about immigration to Britain - and she has every right to be. Labour - and the EU - have thrown open the borders of Britain. The demographics are completely and completely changed because of it, government services are being overwhelmed, crime has skyrocketed and the very nature of Britain is being changed because of it all. As I pointed out here, the decision to allow this level of immigration was a conscious, though unannounced, decision of Labour made after determining that it would substantially increase their voter base. At any rate, the 66 yr. old Labour supporter went on to say "the issue of immigration was not being discussed properly for reasons of political correctness. 'You can't say anything about immigrants.'" PM Minister Brown was pleasant enough, but then in his car, with a microphone still taping, called the woman a bigot for apparently even broaching the topic.

In the U.S., Obama and the entire left are hyperventilating over a carefully crafted Arizona law directing Arizona law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants. The bill does not allow for racial profiling, but directs police to check immigration status should they have otherwise lawful contact - i.e., stop for a traffic violation, etc. Obama demagogued the issue at a Town Hall the other day. Victor Davis Hanson sums up the left wing response:

Racist! Nativist! Profiler! Xenophobe!

Write or say anything about illegal immigration, and one should expect to be called all of that and more—even if a strong supporter of legal immigration. Illegal alien becomes undocumented worker. Anti-immigrant replaces anti-illegal-immigration. “Comprehensive” is a euphemism for amnesty. Triangulation abounds. A fiery op-ed grandstands and deplores the Arizona law, but offers no guidance about illegal immigration — and blames the employer for doing something that the ethnic lobby in fact welcomes. . .

The common threads between Britain and the U.S. are that leftists on both sides of the pond see immigration as a means to attack the existing political system and increase their own political power. Further, both are quite willing to demagogue the issue and label opponents as bigots in order to prevent debate or discussion on the topic. Both are despicable.

Read More...

Thursday, April 22, 2010

British Diversity

From one of the most interesting blogs on the net, Police Inspectors Blog - run by an upper level police officer who blogs under the pseudonym, Inspector Gadget, the latest most wanted posters from Scotland Yard:





Notice any common threads?

This from a comment by the blogger at Thin Blue Line to the Police Inspectors blog:

Not sure about the number [of immigrants] paying tax, though there are figures available about those issued NI numbers, which might indicate the numbers on benefit. Here are a few lines from one of our recent posts that might give you an idea.

The Extra Cost To The Tax Payer Of Immigration :-

• Local Authority race relations £3.1m
• Higher Education race relations £6.7m
• Commission for racial equality £32m
• Translation costs £100m
• Ethnic minority awards scheme £169m
• Security £174m
• English lessons for immigrants £80m
• Treating immigrants with HIV £330m
• Border Controls £690m
• Money sent home by foreign workers £1.4bn
• Asylum support & processing £1.6bn
• COST OF IMMIGRANT CRIME £4bn

Crime related costs, at £4Billion is by far the largest cost attributable to immigration.

Labour’s ‘open door’ policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, claims Professor David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, who puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been a commitment to increase the population by one million every five years. With the population having swollen by 2million since 1997, they’re well on track for that one.

Apparently, Nu Labour research prior to taking power suggested that 80% of immigrants would vote Labour if they acquired citizenship.

On topic, Panorama did a piece on immigration tonight but conveniently left out the effects of immigration on the social fabric and criminal justice system.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

A Tale Of Two "Conservative" Parties - Part 1: The UK


At a time when the left has swung the pendulum hard to the left in both the UK and the US, at a time when the electorate of both US and UK appears poised for a massive move to the right, the "conservative" parties - the Tories in the UK, the Republicans in the U.S. - seem far from up to the task. When we need Churchill and Reagan, we instead have leaders in the mold of Clement Attlee and Herbert Hoover. The problem is particularly acute in the UK.

The UK's political structure has failed systemically. Democracy in Britain does not result in a "representative" democracy. The people of Britain only get a vote for their own local representative. The position of Prime Minister is never voted on by the people, but rather is chosen by the party. The people get no say in the House of Lords - and it is a body that has been politically emasculated by the socialist Labour Party at any rate. Britain has no constitutional limitations on the power of government, despite centruries of agreements that specified such limits and that enshrined individual rights, begining most famously with the Magna Carta. That is because, over two centuries ago, Britain's Parliament declared their decisions the paramount law of the land, thus enshrining what is today a tyranny of the majority. Indeed, it should be noted that the U.S. Bill of Rights is little more than an amalgam of the rights of Protestant Englishmen that existed as of 1776. Unfortunately, many of those rights are circumscribed in Britain today. What all this means in the aggregate is that the wants and desires of the electorate are significantly minimized, the role of a left wing media is greatly magnified, and the desire of politicians to accrete power goes all but unchecked in the UK.

Labour has spent its years in office deconstructing Britain with multiculturalism - including as part and parcel thereof active discrimination against the indigenous population of Britain - open borders immigration, a massively expanding welfare system with incredibly perverse incentives, an ever more intrusive nanny state, huge increases in government spending, an insane energy policy centered on the canard of global warming that is driving up enery costs exponentially and threatens the viability of their energy infrastructure, a war on Christianity, and the transfer of Britain's sovereignty to the EU without the promised referendum of the people. On top of that, only a few short months ago, an MP (Member of Parliament) expense scandal rocked the Labour Party and brought the popularity of the Labour government already at or near its nadir, to a level of popularity slightly below that of the ebola virus.

By all accounts, Labour should be knocked from government in the next election in a blood bath. Yet so weak are the alternatives that it is actually an open question today, but a few short weeks from Britain's next election, whether Britain's conservative party will manage to pull a defeat from the jaws of what should be a victory so vast as to result in a banishment of Labour from political power for years to come. Indeed, EU Referendum reports that the Tories maintain only an 8% lead in the polls over Labour as of today.

When speaking to a very close friend the other day - a woman of uncommon perceptiveness and intellect born and living in Kent - she stated that, while the electorate is poised for a radical move to the right, the problem is that there is no political party to lead them. She thinks that David Cameron, the head of the Tory Party, is the worst kind of unprincipled political opportunist. The Tories, she said, have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the socialist Labour Party and are promising, in essence, to continue many of the same policies that are destroying Britain. The Lib Democrats are even worse. The UKIP is perhaps the only true conservative party, but they are wholly ignored by the media and stand little chance of making significant gains. The BNP is demonized by the media and, while many of their policies are good, their history of racism and anti-semitism makes them an unacceptable choice. In short, the people of Britain are, at a critical moment in their history, being disenfranchised by a broken political system.

My friend recommended a recent article by Simon Heffer as accurately summing up the situation (or, in her vernacular, "spot on.") This from Mr. Heffer at the Telegraph:

. . . The Labour Party has failed utterly in government. It has not merely wrecked the economy, with long-term consequences: it has taken a path of repairing the damage that will, through its emphasis on high taxes, borrowing and public spending, cause more harm before it does any good – if it does any good. It has also been derelict on matters of such significance as our schools, our universities, law and order, immigration and our Armed Forces. . . . Mr Brown's stewardship of our nation has been shocking. He does not deserve to have it renewed.

Yet, despite this atrocity, the Conservative Party has, in the five years since its last debacle, done remarkably little to convince the public that it understands what is going on, let alone that it has any concept of how to make our country more prosperous, better run and generally happier. When David Cameron spoke to activists on the Embankment yesterday morning, one was at once splashed in the face by the cold water of the obsession with image: almost everyone in sight was young, several of them (including a man Mr Cameron ostentatiously embraced with that warm insincerity that is his trademark) from ethnic minorities, a correct proportion of them women. His approach has always been about ticking the boxes of militant superficiality. His main argument is that he is not the Labour Party. Well, not in name, at any rate.

And the Liberal Democrats? They have a flexibility of principle that leaves even that of Mr Cameron standing; a record of opportunism and incompetence in local government (the only place they have had any power) that puts Mr Brown's moral and intellectual inadequacies in the shade. One would be inclined to ridicule them entirely were they not likely to do as much damage to Labour in some parts of the country as the Tories are, and because of the far from impossible prospect of Vince Cable having some say in the running of our economy in a month's time. With various useful independents standing in certain seats, with the Greens in with a chance in Brighton Pavilion, with Ukip a not impossible prospect for the Speaker's seat in Buckingham, with votes being split in a way they have rarely been split before, not just by the Greens and Ukip, but also by the knuckledusters of the BNP, anything could happen.

As I am not an astrologer – and also because I genuinely don't have a clue – you must forgive me if I don't predict the outcome. We shall know soon enough. All that is certain (and here comes another rare fact) is that we shall end up being governed by a social democratic government of some sort. This is not because I expect a coalition including the Lib Dems, though that joy may well await us. It is because the likely programmes and conduct of another Labour or a new Conservative administration will be broadly social democratic. By that, I mean that the state will play a large role in the management of our country; there will a strong redistributive element to policy; levelling down, whether through the education system or the welfare state, will continue. What this means is that a significant proportion of the electorate that wants none of these things will have been effectively disfranchised. Our understandable boredom is tempered by a frustration that none of the main three parties seems to want to represent what so many of us believe in. . . .

For the frustration of the non-social democratic majority in this country has only just begun. No one from the main parties will tell the truth about the need to sack hundreds of thousands of people on the public payroll in order to ensure we live within our means. Nobody will tell the truth about how lower taxes increase revenue, because there are too many cheap votes in bashing bankers who earn lots of money. Nobody will properly defend capitalism as an essential ingredient of a free society. Nobody will champion selective education, which gives such a chance in life to bright children from poor homes, and nobody will be truthful about the pointlessness of much university education.

Nobody will dare to be radical about the corrupt effects of the welfare state. Nobody will take the radical approach needed to counter the results of unlimited immigration. Above all – and that last point leads on to this – nobody will confront the public with the realities of our membership of a European Union governed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has left us with a choice of staying in on Europe's terms, or getting out.

All these things matter to people who are honest, hard-working, love their country, and seek only to be allowed to get on with their lives, undisturbed by the state, and to keep more of what they earn. There will be millions of voters missing from the polling booths on May 6 because there is an agenda missing from the discourse of our leading politicians, all of whom fear challenging a consensus that exists more in their minds, or those of their teenage advisers, than in reality.

The tedium to come can be obviated by not turning on the television for a few weeks. Newspapers, believe me, will ensure the diet of politics is kept to the minimum: our readers are precious to us, and we wish neither to bore them with the self-importance of politicians nor to insult them by bombarding them with propaganda. Strong drink and martial music may be useful. That still leaves the problem of how Britain will ever be run properly, whether by a tribal introvert who wishes to suffocate us with his "values", or a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities". There will be more absurdity yet. "Democracy," wrote Carlyle, "which means despair of finding any Heroes to govern you!" How right you were, Tom, how right you were.

These are dark days indeed in Britain. And there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I would highly recommend the blog EU Referendum for following this election and the various issues associated therewith.


See: A Tale Of Two "Conservative" Parties - Part 2: The U.S.

Read More...

Monday, March 8, 2010

The UK Through Labour's Looking Glass


Its official. Britain is now a caricature of its once great self.

Once the most powerful nation on earth, Britain strode the globe like a colossus. Britain's legacy to the world has been the most important of the past millennium. The most free and rich nations in our world - from the U.S. to Canada to Australia, India and many others, have all emerged from a period of English colonialism. When the revolutionaries fired the first shots in 1776, what they were fighting for was the rights of free Englishmen. And when our founder's wanted to limit the power of the state, they dusted off the English Bill of Rights, made a few tweaks, and ensconced it as our Bill of Rights.

Yet today, the English Bill of Rights is not but a historical document of no legal worth. The rights of British subjects earned over a millennium of revolt and revolution are circumscribed by a modern Parliament that wields unchecked power. The most insidious restriction of those rights today is the right of a British citizen to be free in their speech. Want to feel the police power of the state, say disparaging things about homosexuality, Islam, . . . or now, vegans. Yes, that's right, vegans are one of only several newly minted victim classes by Labour in their Marxist laboratory that is the UK. This from The Times:

Vegans and teetotallers are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under legislation championed by Harriet Harman, the equalities minister.

Members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists.

A code of practice explaining the legal implications of the equality bill states that religions need not be mainstream or well known for their adherents to gain protection. “A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.” . . .

This is nuts. Labour has once again taken the failed theory of multiculturalism and doubled down on it. A vegan diet now classifies as a religion? There is damn good reason to criticize those who eat a vegan diet. The simple fact is, on a pure vegan diet, you can't get enough B-12, thus inviting health problems. It is not a natural diet - rather, it is by definition an unhealthy and unsafe diet. The people that eat vegan - and scream from the rooftops that everyone else needs to start doing it also - are bonkers. And those who believe in abstinence from alcohol are now placed on equal footing with Christianity? Spare me.

If you are not living in the UK or are not following all of this closely, it is difficult to understand just how insidious all of this is. The practical reality of legal protection as a victim group under UK law is to give those newly minted victims carte blanche to push their avant garde life style into all four corners of British society on one hand, while the protection is used as huge cudgel to beat British society into silent submission on the other. If one of the Queen's reckless subjects has the temerity to object, they stand a real chance of inviting all sorts of negative consequences. Follow the link here to get a feel for those negative consequences. This is a cycle we see over and over again, with favored victim classes of the UK's left being held beyond not merely legitimate criticism, but lawful criticism.

If you are a white male in Britain, you are under attack from the Labour government. If you have a problem with radical homosexual agenda being pushed in state schools, better not say anything or you too will feel the discrimination. If you challenge the insane open doors immigration policy in the public sphere, you are treated as a pariah. And of course, if you are a Christian in Britain, you are under attack from the Labour government. That last is important because this latest decision of the Labour government is not merely multiculturalism taken to insane heights, it is also part of Labour's century old war on Christianity. Labour is raising every avant garde lifestyle choice to be the equal under the law with actual religion, thus calling the fundamental worth of Christianity into question. The PC culture of Britain is insane. It's Alice through the looking glass across the pond.

This once great country is now gone so far off the rails that, from an ocean away, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the UK as a Western democracy. It is certainly moving into the sphere of soft totalitarianism. Moreover, with the vast majority of power transferred from Parliament to the EU, the fact is that it really no longer is a functioning democracy. The people of Britain can still vote, but their Parliament no longer has all that much to do. That of course came about after Labour refused to hold a promised referendum on the issue of transferring Britain's sovereignty to the EU. It was despicable - as is the current Tory position, that they will treat this Labour coup as a fait accompli. One wonders if the great ship of British state can ever be righted?

Read More...

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Europe's Suicide


The socialist left, now largely in control throughout Europe, has warred on Christianity and made common cause with Muslims - in many cases radical Wahhabists - as a means of gaining political power and remaking Western society. An ever increasing Muslim population in Europe inevitably votes for the socialist left. In exchange, the left provides lax immigration, permissive public benefits, and pushes multiculturalism - a thoroughly bankrupt philosophy that denigrates the traditional foundations of Western civilization, including Christianity, and that actually encourages Muslims not to integrate into their respective Western societies. The end result is an ever growing population of Muslims who are, in many cases, even more radicalized than the general populations in their respective countries of origin. And a sizable portion of these individuals wish to see their European homes converted, forcibly if necessary, to Muslim rule and Sharia law. The process is very far along in many cases - with, for but one example, Brussels, the capital of the EU, now dominated by Muslims. And there is this today from the Telegraph:

Last year, five per cent of the total population of the 27 EU countries was Muslim. But rising levels of immigration from Muslim countries and low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population mean that, by 2050, the figure will be 20 per cent, according to forecasts.

Data gathered from various sources indicate that Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time.

The UK, which currently has 20 million fewer people than Germany, is also projected to be the EU's most populous country by 2060, with 77 million people.

The findings have led to allegations that policy-makers are failing to confront the widespread challenges of the "demographic time bomb".

Experts say that there has been a lack of debate on how the population changes will affect areas of life from education and housing to foreign policy and pensions. . . .

To say that there has been a lack of debate on this issue is, in the UK in particular, a laughable understatement. In 1968, a Tory Shadow Minister, Enoch Powell gave a speech, commonly called today the "Rivers of Blood" speech, where he warned against allowing large scale immigration. Powell was utterly demonized by the socialists in Labour and kicked from the Shadow Cabinet by the Tories. And since his speech, the socialist left has made any criticism of the UK's permissive immigration policy sheer political suicide, while the Tory leadership has cravenly capitulated to the left on the issue. Indeed, so radioactive has the left made this issue and so thoroughly have the Tories put their tails between their legs that as recently as two years ago a Tory candidate for Parliament was forced to withdraw from his bid after he merely made an approving reference to Enoch Powell's speech.

The aftermath of Powell's speech is telling. While socialists demagogued and conservatives cowered, polls at the time immediately after Powell's speech showed public support for Powell rising to 75% of the electorate. This demonstrates that there was then, and very much still is today, a true disconnect between Britain's political elite and the rank and file. The rank and file of Britain were then and are now very concerned about the deconstruction of their society. The ruling elite have utterly refused to take heed of their concerns. And indeed, that is true on many of the critically important issues confronting Britain, including most recently the turn-over of British sovereignty to the EU without a promised referendum of the electorate. The rank and file, however, seemed like sheep - content to disagree vehemently while doing naught else but a shrug of their shoulders. It appeared until very recently that the blood of Cromwell lay dormant in their veins. That is not necessarily so today.

The demagoguery of the left on this issue was already starting to loose its force as the real problems facing the UK as a result of this mass demographic change became increasingly obvious and painful. More importantly though, the political landscape of the UK has changed drastically in the past months. The British rank and file exploded in Cromwellian fashion with real, seething anger - and MP's acted with real fear of the electorate for the first time in perhaps centuries - over the recent revelations of widespread and outrageous abuse of expenses by MP's. We have yet to see whether the rank and file anger at the MP's over expenses also resonates to the truly critical and existential issues facing the UK, one of which is clearly immigration - an issue also inextricably bound up in EU membership. Let us hope so, as it is not an overdramatization to say that the future of Western civilization in the UK and on the Continent hangs in the balance.








Read More...

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Geert Wilders, The Euro-Left & Salafi Islam


It is getting scary," she said. "He is becoming more extreme. He has made it respectable to speak out against Muslims."

Marjina Bernard, 52 y.o. Dutch Citizen, speaking about Geert Wilders, quoted in "Dutch Divided Over Geert Wilders as Radical MP Eyes Premiership," The Telegraph, 14 June 2009

Three years ago, Dutch politician Geert Wilders broke with the major Duthch Party, the Peoples Party, over their support for ascesion of Turkey to the EU. Wilders believes that the Salafi Islamicization of Europe needs to be resisted and immigration brought under control. A fierce proponent of freedom of speech, he is the anti-Obama. Instead of ignoring the many ills of Islam and engaging in moral relativism, Wilder speaks forcefully on the unvarnished truth of what he sees. Much of his criticism is summed up in his movie short, FITNA. It is not racist, nor is it anything more than you will find on this blog, such as the post "Dear Pakistan" and "What You Don't Know About Salafism Could Kill You." And do see the autobiographical post of former terrorist Tawfiq Hamid here.

Understand also that, through immigration, Islam is rapidly taking over large swaths of Europe. The problem is particularly accute in Wilder's Netherlands and surrounding countries.

"In the Netherlands, Muslims will soon make up the majority in all major cities. “Today, we have 1 million Muslims out of 16 million Dutch,” according to Frits Bolkestein, Dutch politician and former EU Commissioner. “Within 10 years, they will have an absolute majority in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam. We are staring into the face of a shortly to be divided community.

And this from Mark Steyn:

Brussels has a Socialist mayor, which isn’t that surprising, but he presides over a caucus a majority of whose members are Muslim, which might yet surprise those who think we’re dealing with some slow, gradual, way-off-in-the-future process here. But so goes Christendom at the dawn of the third millennium: the ruling party of the capital city of the European Union is mostly Muslim.

And the attitude towards this takeover among the European left is simply mindnumbing. To give you an idea of what Wilders is up against, please see this post on the recent travails of left wing Dutch journalist and nominee for Dhimmi Of The Millenium Joanie de Rijke.

After breaking with his party, Wilders established a new political party, Party for Freedom. Many ignored Wilders or attempted to silence him. Britain's morally bankrupt Home Office banned Wilder from entering the country and he has been sued several times under the EU's hate speech laws. Yet in three years, his party is now the second largest party in Dutch politics. It is garnering ever more interest from the realists - and causing ever more consternation on the left. This from the Telegraph today:

. . . To many abroad Mr Wilders, a Dutch MP, appears an old-fashioned racist whose views put him on a par with other far-Right politicians elsewhere in Europe.

Yet in its first ever test of national electoral support among the normally tolerant Dutch, his anti-immigration Party for Freedom which he founded in 2006 won 17 per cent of the votes – making it the second biggest party. That has shaken the country to its core – opening up the real possibility that, through the Dutch coalition system, Mr Wilders could win power at the next general election.

Now, like many others in the Netherlands, the Bernards are desperately worried. "This has the feeling of what happened to Germany in the 1930s," said Alfred Bernard, 52, a lawyer. "Wilders blames foreigners for everything. People are disoriented because of the economic crisis. Everywhere there is dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians.

"After this I really believe that Wilders could become prime minister in the 2011 parliamentary elections, or at least set the political agenda."

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Wilders, 45, was frank about that ambition. Asked about the prospect of taking power in two years' time, he said: "That is our biggest job. We had an enormous success last week and our biggest task is to keep up momentum. I am very confident that we will have an excellent result.

"If my party becomes the biggest party, I would be honoured to be prime minister."

Sitting in his office in the Dutch parliament building in The Hague, protected from the threat of assassination by 10 armed secret service bodyguards, he summed up his antipathy to the religion of many immigrants to the Netherlands.

"Islam wants to dominate our society," he said in fluent and only slightly accented English. "It's in opposition to freedom.

"If people are offended, that's not my aim. I don't talk about Muslims but about Islam. Everything I say is against the fascist Islamic ideology."

To the charge that to many his views appeared to be racist, he responded: "If that was true, we would never have been the second biggest party in the European elections."

Why, then, did Moroccans and Turks living in the Netherlands so fear him? "As long as they don't commit crimes, it's a baseless fear," he said. "If you adhere to our laws, if you act according to our values, you are free to stay. We will help you to integrate.

"But if you cross the red line, if you start committing crimes, if you want to do jihad or impose sharia, we want you to be sent out of the Netherlands and we will get rid of your permits to stay."

An admirer of Churchill and Lady Thatcher, he is charismatic as well as combative. Holland's conventional politicians – mostly dull men in suits – have no idea how to counter his politically incorrect taunts, which outrage the parliamentary chamber but delight his supporters.

He has come a long way since the days when he could be lightly dismissed as an eccentric fringe politician with an extraordinary blond quiff, known mainly for baiting Muslims.

"Half of Holland loves me and half of Holland hates me. There is no in-between," Mr Wilders said. "This is a new politics, and I think it would have a great chance of success in other European countries. We are democrats. On economic and social issues we are centrist. We want tougher laws on crime and we want to stop Holland paying so much money to the European Union.

"We would stop immigration from Muslim countries and close Islamic schools. We want to be more proud of our identity."

He admitted that he is frustrated at his image abroad, especially in Britain, a country which he admires. He claimed to believe in freedom above all else and pointed out that he is despised by Holland's Neo-Nazis, who dubbed him the "blond Zionist" because of his links to Israel – a country which he has often visited and where he counts politicians among his friends.

He is still angered at being banned from entering Britain, where he had been invited to show his controversial 17-minute film linking the Koran with the September 11 terror attacks. Muslim groups were among those who campaigned against his admission, and he dismissed the Home Office ruling as an attempt at "appeasement" of Islam.

Dutch liberals groaned when the British Government refused entry, because they knew Mr Wilders would milk the decision to generate massive publicity at home. He is also being prosecuted in Holland for promoting hate crimes, a case which is thought unlikely to succeed but which has allowed him to pose as a martyr.

. . . Then a dreamy look of a man convinced of his own destiny came into his eyes as he launched into a fresh tirade about the threat to Western civilisation from Islam. "Samuel Huntingdon was being too positive when he talked about a clash of civilisations," Mr Wilders said. "It is civilisation against barbarity."

. . . Dutch tolerance has shaped the Party of Freedom to be quite unlike most European Right-wing movements: its election campaigning championed the victims of gay-bashing gangs of Moroccan youths, and Mr Wilders talks often about the threat from Islam to women's rights.

His success is a sign of how the political landscape has changed. Even Dutch left-wingers now have to admit that there is a problem with Moroccan street gangs are a problem, and liberals wring their hands about the failure of immigrants to integrate since the first were admitted during the 1960s and 70s – many from Morocco and Turkey. . . .

Read the entire article. It may be that Wilders is appearing on the scene too late to stop what could well turn into a bloody conflict in Europe. That said, people like Wilders who are honest and realistic may serve to head off such an eventuality. I think Obama approach articulated in his Cairo speech - to mouth half truths and ridiculous moral equivalencies - will only make such a conflict more likely.








Read More...

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Another Word On The BNP


I've posted on the EU election here, noting the fact that the BNP won two seats and my thoughts on that outcome. Brits At Their Best has a post on the election that also includes a discussion of the reasons for the BNP's growing popularity. They quote Andrew Stuttaford from the The Corner, who writes:

The relative success (it won two seats) of the. . .British National Party. . .in the U.K. slice of the EU elections is best seen primarily as the product of five factors: (a) the largely accurate perception that the Blair-Brown governments were enablers of mass immigration; (b) not-unconnected fears over the rise of militant Islam within the U.K.; (c) dislike of the EU; (d) the economic crisis; (e) globalization (on economics & trade policy the party is quite some way to the left) and; (f) the widespread perception, flowing in no small part from points a-e, that no parliamentary party is prepared to stick up for the interests of the white working class, a perception that explains the BNP's recent success in finding support amongst former Labour voters. Throw in the the way that the expenses scandal now roiling parliament has discredited much of the existing political class, and there you have it . . .

I would add that the new "Equality" legislation being considered by Parliament in effect would institutionalize reverse racism against white male workers in the UK. As the Daily Times describes it, "[e]mployers will be given legal powers to discriminate in favour of women and black job candidates under a controversial equality shake-up." Its not surprising that there is finally a back lash being felt to all of this. It's long overdue.

I can't see the BNP winning an electoral majority in the UK in the foreseeable future. But I can see their growing popularity marking a real change to the terms of the debate. And in the UK, where for example even minor criticism of such things as immigration has been enough to get one labled a racist and ridden out of politics on a rail, that is a good thing indeed.








Read More...

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

UK Socialists & Savage Thought Control (Updated)


A few months ago, Geert Wilders was invited by several members of the House of Lords to screen for them his movie, Fitna - a short piece that expresses his opinion that the Koran is a cause of violence and that Islam presents a danger to the West. The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith denied Wilders entry, not because Wilders advocated violence - Wilders never has - but ostensibly because Britain's own anti-western, radical Muslims threatened violence if he was allowed into the country. Now the UK's Home Office has gone one further. Britain has declared U.S. shock jock Michael Savage persona non grata becaue . . . well, because his opinions challenge their dogma and might spark open debate on issues the socialists wish to treat as sacrosanct.

Michael Savage has never advocated violence. He hasn't organized bands of fighters to take part in a jihad. He has not spoken glowingly of the beheading of a takfir, nor has he suggested that we should throw gays off a mountain as far as I know. He has yet to say that a person who switches their religion should be stoned to death. His sin, however, as the socialist UK government sees it, is to express thoughts at variance with their own dogma, particularly on issues of immigration and Islam - two tools the UK's socialist left are using to work fundamental changes to British society. This from Phillip Johnston writing at the Telegraph:

The Home Office has issued the latest list of people it believes should not come to the country because they hold extremist opinions.

It is a state's prerogative to decide who it wants to come to its country. That is, after all, what a visa system is for. But those banned from entry used to be people who were likely to cause public disorder or who had criminal records. . . . Now we are more likely than not to ban someone for what they think. The list of people banned over the past six months includes a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, a neo-Nazi, a Hamas MP, a Baptist pastor and his daughter barred for homophobia and a Jewish extremist. Oddly, it also contains the name Michael Savage, a US "shock jock" talk-show host whose views on Islam, rape and autism have stirred controversy in America. By all accounts, his views are pretty offensive; but is that reason enough to ban someone? The test usually is whether the individual in expressing his views would threaten public order. . . .

The Government claims Savage engages in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence. But is not the real reason he is barred because he preaches dislike of other groups rather than violence against them?

Home Office officials say Michael Savage . . . holds abhorrent views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism, which have caused great offence in America. That may be so. But are we now banning people because we don't like what they think or say; or are we accepting that anyone who responds violently to a view of which they disapprove can effectively veto other people's right to free speech?

Now we learn that Savage may sue the Home Secretary for defamation. He said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

He said: "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in (the same) league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses is defamation.

"I thought this was a joke or a mistake." He has a point. Jacqui Smith said the people who were banned were those whose views the country 'would not tolerate'.

But who is she to make that decision? While it is the job of the Home Secretary to ensure the security and safety of the nation, it is not for her to decree what we should hear and to whom we should listen.

Read the entire post.

The UK's Home Secretary is just doing what comes natural to the left - using the police powers of the state to punish thought with which they disagree. We see the socialist left in America attempting and, to a much lesser degree, succeeding with the same things. We see the left pushing ahead with challenges to the OLC attorneys for green lighting policies with which they disagree. And just the other day we were treated to the passage of a Hate Crimes bill, ensconcing an unequal system of justice in favor of Marxian defined members of a "victim class." But the left cannot go too along far on this path in in the U.S. We still have the First Amendment It is an oak oak which the left chips at daily but has yet to fell.

The UK, which exists in today what can only be described as a tyranny of the majority, has no such protections for speech. Predictably, the left in Britian - they being the tyranny in the majority at the moment - have gone much farther in punishing thought then they could ever get away with in the U.S. And on two critical issues facing the UK, immigration and Islam, the left has essentially shut down all debate for decades. Anyone in Britain who speaks against immigration or Islam, particularly if while doing so, mentions as a motivation the protection of British natavist culture, is demonized, subject to losing their livelihood, and indeed, subject to arrest by the state. You can see my post here for some particularly egregious examples. At any rate, it should come as no surprise that the socialist Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has sited Savage's views on Islam and immigration as the first two reasons why he should not be allowed into the UK.

George Washington warned that, without freedom of speech, we may be led "as lambs to the slaughter." Jacqui Smith apparently wants to insure no one gets into the UK who can induce in the lambs any thought that might lead them from that path.

Update: Brits At Their Best have two posts touching on the blacklisting of Michael Savage and freedom of speech in England, both of which are worthy of a read. The first discusses the irony that Michael Savage recently hosted Lord Monckton on his radio show for the purpose of giving Monckton a platform to speak to the U.S. public - something denied Lord Monckton by Democrats during Al Gore's testimony to the House Energy Committee. The second involves something that Brits At Their Best does better than any blog on the internet - put our modern issues in their historical context. In this case, the authors discuss the free speech issues raised by the Home Secretary's actions in respect of Henry VIIIth and William Tyndale, the man who lost his life for translating the bible into English. Read the post here.







Read More...