An Open Letter To Britain And The British People,

Awhile ago I wrote an article with a similar title that got a certain amount of circulation. Consider this a post Brexit  update, because there's a lot that hasn't changed. Even worse, the disease is beginning to effect America.

 I write this with mixed feelings. While I have a number of British friends and acquaintances, I’m afraid I have little respect left as a whole for what Britain has become today.

What inspired this update was something Katie Hopkins wrote recently that is well worth reading. It's about this little 7 year old, Emily Jones:



 This adorable child was enjoying a sunny spring day with her family at Queen’s Park in Heaton, Bolton on March 22 when a 30-year-old Somali woman sitting on a bench near by stabbed the girl in the neck for no reason at all in front of her family. Emily was rushed to a nearby hospital but  died shortly afterwards.

 As Police officer Rebecca Gardner told the court, ‘Emily was on her scooter playing. As she rode past a wooden bench, a female sat on the bench and suddenly attacked Emily, stabbing her in the neck, causing catastrophic injury.’

Her killer was an illegal migrant who was allowed into the UK for goodness knows why. It's known that the police have admitted they were aware of her, had her 'on our radar.' So why didn't they do something about it?  Why?Because that's how it is in the UK nowadays. The killer's  identity is being hidden by the powers that be and  the media of course is  burying the story and of course the details about her murderer,  allowing her to hide behind her race and  religion. Meanwhile, her lawyers are pushing to get her off based on how “mentally ill” the Somali murderer is. The fact that she was in the UK illegally and the police knew is somehow not important in the least.

As you can see, nothing much has changed since I wrote the original article.

Can you just picture how different things would be if  a white British male had done this to a Muslim child? Or if her father had seen this beast pull out her knife, pushed little Emily out of the way and terminated the killer or even struck her? In either case, it would be front page news on the BBC and every British newspaper,complete with pictures of the killer and his identity would be revealed. If it had been Emily's dad, the fact that he was defending his little daughter from a vicious killer would mean very little. He'd be in jail for a long spell. And since most of Britain's citizens have been disarmed, there's probably very little her father or mother could have done to defend her and save her life anyway.

America is by no means immune to this darkness.  Five chassidic Jewish men, most of them elderly were recently attacked brutally by a black man armed with a machete in Monsey, New York. In spite of there being no question about the killer's identity or motive, (the 'suspect'  Grafton Thomas was found with his victim's blood all over him as well as the murder weapon). He also tried to run into a synagogue and attack but someone inside managed to close the door first.Public defender Kristine Ciganek argued her client had no criminal history and lived with his mother. Actually he had been charged previously with menacing and reckless endangerment charges lodged against him, which were  to be dismissed  if he avoided legal trouble.

The police investigation also found that Grafton Thomas had a major fixation on Jews, including reading Mein Kampf and some of Hitler's speeches as well as visiting a number of anti-semitic websites and keeping a journal of his sick ideas. When asked why he had done what he did, he replied "I just wanted to change the complexion of society."

 Thomas entered a not guilty plea, of course. And his lawyer's case, of course, is that he was 'mentally unstable and thus not responsible.'

Believe or not, this man was released without bail thanks to New York state's new laws. Read the list at the link.You won't believe what you can get away within New York state. The judge also ruled that Grafton Thomas would undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Rest assured he will likely be acquitted.
And this is by no means an isolated instance.

Here's food for thought. If people like these really are capable of this kind of violence because of their mental state, why keep them around? Don't we put rabid animals to sleep, especially if they have attacked  humans? Why not eliminate violent thugs in cases like these where there's no doubt? Why should they have even years of life in prison, something denied to Emily Jones simply because she came within reach of a murderous beast? And why not return to the old ways of capital punishment, which actually were something of a deterrent?

 Great Britain was once one of the free, civilized nations of the world, a country that exemplified the rule of law and the love of freedom. As many of you may now understand, that isn’t true anymore, and that saddens me.

The Brexit fiasco is a good example.Years after the British people voted to sever ties with the EU, the British government and Theresa May were more than willing to surrender British sovereignty to Brussels and to Germany and agreed to a ‘transition period’ lasting until 2022, with the UK following all EU policies without having any voice in making them. Among other things, the UK would not have been able to even regain full control of UK fisheries.

Not only that, but Britain’s borders would have been required to remain open to Muslim migrants and ‘refugees’ for the entire period. And all European Union citizens and ‘residents’ coming to the United Kingdom through this period into the 2020’s were to have full rights forever, under what the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier called a “new resident status,” saying this would give those citizens “legal certainty.”

Apparently the powers that be in the UK decided that the EU's idea that UK was to have no say in who comes to Britain, or how long they can stay was a good one...and so was not having  any power to remove them.  Allahu Akbar!

Well, Brexit finally went through, though it took a lot more time and another election. But the essential issue still remains.If you think Britain has a problem with restive Muslim migrants now, just wait a few years as even more of them flock to the UK. They’re already out breeding you, and given the large number of them on the dole, you’re paying through the nose to facilitate the takeover of your own country.

 

And public safety? A lot of your police even now were prepared to follow orders and protect their jobs and pensions by keeping quiet and hiding something they knew full well was going on…Muslims gangs raping literally hundreds of British underage girls and using them as prostitutes. Nothing has ever been done about this for the most part, and any one who risked their freedom Like Tommy Robinson, any journalist like Katie Hopkins who refused to keep quiet, and any teacher, social worker or government employee who tried to draw attention to this atrocity lost jobs, were demoted and in some cases lost their freedom.

Your police have even stooped to the level of obeying orders from their superiors not to prosecute Muslims for clear violations of British law!



Since it’s a bit hard to decipher in places because it was obviously recorded clandestinely, I’ll tell you what’s on this video. Muslims have been publicly praying in a Royal Park in London, which is a blatant violation of British law. London’s Metropolitan Police have deliberately refrained from enforcing that law, but in this case, the police are caught red handed. First, the police try to lie and claim the law doesn’t exist until someone actually reads them the exact wording and statute number. Then they finally admit that they have orders from their superiors not to enforce the law against Muslims and only Muslims!

(Apparently the powers that be at YouTube agreed with me that this was a blatant admission of how the British police have been ordered to behave and yanked it.)

Then, the police sergeant keeps asking this brave thought criminal to give him her ‘details’ which she wisely refuses to do, especially since she’s also surrounded by a number of outraged, aggressive Muslims. And anyway, giving your real name and address to London’s police in these situations when you’re already labeled an ‘Islamophobe’ and a ‘racist’ has consistently proven to be unwise.

How many other laws have your police been instructed to ignore when it comes to Muslims?

Do you really think this situation isn’t going to get even worse in the future you have coming unless you do something about it? The British Police are going out of their way to recruit more Muslim police officers as I write this. And rest assured that a number of them will be fast tracked for promotion and supervisory positions, particularly in London and other cities Muslims now dominate. As this process matures, for the most part the police will defend you even less in the future than they do now.

Once Islam really takes over your country, you will fear to even let your daughters, sisters or wives walk to school or to market. British girls will be abducted off the streets, gang raped, and beaten until they are forced to say the shehadah* and covert to Islam. And after that, they will be ‘married’ to one of the perpetrators and you will never even be allowed to see them again without their lord and master’s consent. You think I’m exaggerating? This has already happened to a great many Christian girls living in Egypt, Pakistan and other Muslim dominated countries. Do you think it won’t happen in Britain? Do you imagine your churches won’t be bombed or burned to the ground? They will.

This is what’s coming unless you stop it. If you don’t, you really have only three choices. You can surrender, flee if you can, or fight. Surrendering involves either converting to Islam or living the life of a dhimmi, without even the right to testify in court. And you'll be paying the jizrah tax to your Muslim overlords for the privilege of living according to their whims. Fleeing would mean migrating to Australia, New Zealand, Canada or America for the most part, assuming you can get in.If you can’t or won’t do either and you don’t fancy the life of a slave, the remaining choice is to fight. And the longer you avoid it, the tougher it’s going to be.

There are several serious obstacles you will need to overcome if you choose the third option. First, you have allowed yourselves to be disarmed, and that will need to change. Second you need to organize, and given the placid response by the British people to what’s been done to you so far, arousing them may take some doing. If the death of Emily Jones and the scandal of how your police covered up the sex grooming gangs hasn't roused them, I'm not sure what will. A society that refuses to protect its women and children is a conquered one. Is it any wonder some of your new 'residents' are acting in this way?


If you Brits wake up,  these obstacles can be overcome at this point, because you are the many and they are the few. And yes, by ‘they’ I also include the power structure and their hirelings who have brought a once proud and free nation to this point.

Arming yourselves is imperative, and not all that difficult. Basic but effective firearms can be constructed with a little knowledge, a secure workplace and some basic tools. They can also be stolen or smuggled in if necessary. You might also find that a lot of your fellow Brits have guns and ammo stowed away after reporting them as ‘lost’ or ‘stolen.’

There are also other weapons that can be easily obtained that are still quite effective and have advantages of their own. Crossbows are silent, accurate, easy to use and fairly deadly. A metal bolt from a modern crossbow can go through the walls of an average house or office. And they also have the advantage of leaving no powder traces or other telltale signs of being used, as well as no revealing flash at night to show where the shot came from. Modern re-cranking tools also make reloading a lot easier than it used to be. Swords, knives, axes and machetes can also be quite effective in the right time and place.

Your organizing should be on two levels, public and private. The public side might include politicians like the more nationalistic Tories, as well as UKIP and other parties and politicians willing to put aside their petty differences and unite. You may even find Muslims who came to the UK to leave behind things like sharia, jihad and honor killings willing to unite with you.

Obviously,while there are many nationalistic Tories, the party itself has done fairly little to date when it comes to the real problem. You need to insist on it. Nothing scares a politician as much as  organized voters telling them they'll be out of a job unless they deal with this NOW. If you aren't able to do this, the alternative,of course, is that the UK will eventually have a pro-Islamist Labour Prime Minister, perhaps even London Mayor Saddiq Kahn. And if the present mayor stays in power in London and people like him rule other Muslim majority cities, what do you think your lives will be like?

The private side is something else again, and calls for a fair amount of security and secrecy. Back when Britain was in danger of being invaded by the Nazis, PM Winston Churchill put together an entire system of secret cells of resistance fighters throughout Britain, men with training in covert sabotage, assassination and other resistance activities who had secret, well hidden locations stocked with arms, explosives, food and ammo. Fortunately, they never had to be used but such a system would have been quite effective if the Nazis had actually invaded. Keeping the groups in small cells ensured that if any of them were captured, they would be able to give up only the members of their own cells at worst, no matter what was done to them. It’s a system worth exploring. And if you look around carefully, you might just find some of the old hands still alive from WWII or more recent conflicts like the Falklands or AfPak who would be willing to pass on a few tricks from their training.

Just so no one faints away from shock, I’m not talking about an insurrection. This can still be handled politically at this time. But I am talking about preparedness, which is always a virtue, especially for a free people. It often prevents totalitarian politicians from pursuing their heart’s desire.
Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that once: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." 

George Mason, another of the founders also put it quite well: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Think about it.

Finally, leadership. I have an admission to make here. While you finally appear to have found some leadership in Boris Johnson*, it remains to be seen what he will do about the present situation. It seems like anyone who challenges what is being done to Britain these days is simply declared a ‘racist,’ fired and/or disgraced if they’re lucky and threatened – sorry, ‘cautioned’ – by the police, fined or even imprisoned if they’re not so lucky. And if they’re not UK citizens and try to enter the country to give a speech, be interviewed or attend a conference,  they’re detained and then thrown out of the country with zero due process for what Mao’s Red Guard would have called ‘incorrect thought.’

Here in America, we have a president, Donald Trump who seems to champion exactly the policies that  are likely what the UK  needs to be rescued…a stop to importing Muslim migrants from some of the most violent, dangerous countries in the world, better vetting of migrants who were or are allowed in, a nationalist foreign policy, a strong military, defense of American workers and a championing of the right of the American people to be armed and  able to defend themselves.
Is it any wonder your press and your political leaders and overlords despise President Trump? That they insult him and paint him in the worst colors, that they defame him even to the point of demanding he be barred from coming to the UK?

President Trump might not be perfect, because no president is. But just look at the political leaders you have! They’re actually engaged in the process of turning Britain from a free country into something far different, a nouveau version blending the worst elements of  1984 with A Clockwork Orange, except this time with Alex, Dim and his pals having names like Mohammed and Abdullah. I doubt even George Orwell’s or Anthony Burgess’s imagination stretched that far. And let’s not forget, you voted for this. You chose them as your leaders. What were you thinking???


Leadership is a funny thing. It can come from someone in an obvious position who steps forward in time of need, or from someone previously despised and rejected before, like Sir Winston Churchill. It can come from a military figure or a politician. It can even come out of nowhere when you least expect it. But you need to find it, and fast. Or perhaps, if you’re fortunate, it will find you at your hour of need.

In the end, the choice is up to you. What is your freedom worth to you, your children and your children’s children? Is this future I’ve painted above really what you want for yourselves and your posterity?

For what it’s worth, I’m hoping you get back up off the floor and win this one…for your own sake.And for Freedom's.After all, you’ve done it before.

*Correction. BoJo is no leader, and has no problem bowing down to the EU and allowing lots of 'refugees'  into Britain, mostly Muslims and Africans from France.


Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, The Times of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

The UK Election Results; What Happened And What It Means

The UK elections are over, with just one constituency(parliamentary seat) remaining to be counted, in Kensington. The end results? A hung parliament, a resurgence of the hard Left under Jeremy Corbyn and a huge slap in the face for the Conservatives and PM Theresa May:

• Conservative Seats: 318; Change in seats: −12
• Labour Seats: 261; Change in seats: +29
• Liberal Dem Seats: 12; Change in seats: +4
• UKIP Seats: 0; Change in seats: −1
• SNP Seats: 35; Change in seats: −21
• Other Seats: 23

The Tories went from having a workable majority of 17 seats to being 8 seats short of a majority in an election called by Theresa May that didn't need to be held at all. That has to go down as one of the worst political blunders in British history.

In order to get legislation through, the Conservatives will now have to rely on an alliance with the Democratic Union Party (DUP) in Northern Ireland and their 10 seats. Since the Unionists normally vote with the conservatives anyway, it isn't a big stretch but still amounts to a lessening of stability and cohesion when it comes to governing. That's especially ironic when you think of Theresa May's often repeated mantra that 'this country needs stability.' Her political blunder just made things a lot less stable.

So how did this happen? How did the Tories go from being 20 points ahead in the polls to losing their majority. And what does it tell us about Britain?

Theresa May ran a poor campaign and Jeremy Corbyn ran Bernie Sander's. May presented herself as a strong leader but came across as anything but. She alienated a key Tory constituency by proposing that the elderly pay more for their healthcare, something she later had to do a U-turn on. She  was seen as remote and unconcerned, rarely campaigning actively. She refused to participate in debates and was also seen (correctly) as weak on terrorism and national security.

Or as I put it earlier:

The point I’m making here is that when it comes to national security and the two major parties, we’re dealing with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Neither the Tories or Labour really want to fight Islamist terrorism. The conservatives are just merely a bit less dum, if you take my meaning…

Unlike Labour’s Corbyn, who actually sympathizes with jihadis like Hamas and Hezbollah, PM May at least understands in some way that the current situation is not good at all and most be dealt with..albeit in some politically correct way, she’s not quite sure how, that doesn’t result in anyone calling her racist or the Leftist press mauling her.

Jeremy Corbyn essentially ran Bernie Sander's campaign, promising free goodies for everybody without any concrete plans for paying for it except 'tax the rich.' Like Sanders, he also promised the kiddies free college. This resulted in a larger than average turnout as young voters flocked to him. In some of the constituencies in the North and in the Midlands the Tories were counting on flipping, it made the difference.

Unlike May, Corbyn campaigned actively. And his openly anti-semitic and anti-Israel stance, something he's been unapologetic about for a long time brought in the Muslim vote as well without him having to dwell on it overmuch.Overall it appears to have been a plus numbers wise. And it obviously wasn't a problem for a lot of Labour's voters in general either. Here's a Labour campaign poster tying May in with Israel and that old, familiar anti-semitic theme of the Jews running things behind the scenes:



While Britain's Jews mostly deserted their old home in Labour (it likely cost Corbyn four seats in London in districts with a high Jewish population), Labour still got something like 13% of the Jewish vote. And based on the favorable coverage Corbyn is now getting in the Leftist press worldwide, his success can definitely be seen as mainstreaming his anti-semitic and anti-Israel views not just in the UK, but elsewhere.

The election became essentially a return to two party politics, and those ex-third party voters didn't break the way the Tories figured they would. One of Theresa May's reasons for calling a needless election was her theory that the pro Brexit UKIP voters would now vote Tory since their main issue was no longer in play. Instead, those voters went back to their former parties and split a lot more evenly. The Scottish National Party had a similar meltdown, losing 21 of the seats it won in 2015. And their voters also split among the two major parties.

The appeal of socialism and anti-semitism is a rising tide on the UK's left, especially among young voters. As I mentioned, Jeremy Corbyn's friendship for jihadists, enmity for Israel and general views on Jews didn't stop Labour from getting 40% of the vote compared to the Tory's 42.4%. And a number of those voters were young voters. The 18-24 year-old demographic is one of the only ones where Labour had a significant lead, and those votes made the difference in a number of places. Many of the Labour politicos that disagreed with Corbyn's views are going to have to come to terms and support him, or leave the party.

Theresa May's leadership has been severely compromised. She made it plain that she has no intentions of resigning and has already received the Queen's Commission to try and form a government. But at this point, many of her own party despise her for taking a gamble like this and losing, especially after many of them advised her not to. And their disapproval is mild compared to what the Left has in store for her.

A party leadership election at this point would make things even more chaotic, especially with the Brexit negotiations just a few days away so that's unlikely. But she's basically governing crippled at this point. And I wouldn't be surprised if she either resigns as Prime Minister or is forced out by a vote of no confidence in the future.

Parliament Votes Theresa May The Power to Execute Brexit

Today may end up being a landmark day in Britain's history. The Leftists, EUphiles and globalists did their very best to slow things down with amendments requiring compliance before Brexit could be implemented, but every one of them was solidly voted down by Parliament and PM Theresa May now has the power to execute Brexit,and the authority and a clear path to take Britain out of the EU:

Nine proposals in all, ranging from the rights of EU migrants to the opinions of the Gibraltar Government, were put to the vote, and one by one all nine proposals were thrown out by MPs.
It was a flawless night for Theresa May, as the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was passed by 494 votes to 122 in its original, unamended form.

Eurosceptic MPs could barely contain their excitement, with one minister saying as he went to vote: "I am about to have the best moment of my life since my wedding night."

(I'll resist the temptation to make the obvious joke here...)

Another unintentionally funny moment occurred when Scottish National Party MPs starting singing the EU anthem, Beethoven's 'Ode To Joy' form his 9th Symphony. That got them rebuked by Lindsay Hoyle, the Deputy Speaker. They deserved it, I'm sure. The singing must have been absolutely awful...imagine Scots trying to sing German lyrics with that accent!

In any event, Britain is now on track to exit the EU. PM May will allow Parliament to vote on her final proposal before submitting it to the EU, but the path is now clear for an expedited Brexit.

Brexit - The Triumph Of Freedom Over Tyranny

"This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,-
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."




Britain has voted on whether to stay in the EU or exit. In spite of the 'leave' campaign being massively outspent, demonized in the press and harangued and threatened by foreign leaders including America's President Obama, the British made their choice and they chose clearly  to leave.

President Obama in particular had a significant effect on the vote. After his speech threatening that if Britain left the EU they  "would go to the back of the queue as far as trade is concerned" and that the special relationship between the U.S. and the UK would be changed, the poll numbers for leave skyrocketed. Nigel Farage, leader of the eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKip) quipped that Obama's little screed was so helpful to the Brexit camp that he should "come over more often."

 

The election itself told a clear story about where Britain is today. England and Wales largely voted for Brexit, with the exception of pockets in large cities like Muslim-dominated Tower Hamlets in London. Northern Ireland voted remain, but that was thanks to majorities in locations closer to Eire, the Irish Republic.

The real giveaway was Scotland, which voted 'remain' by almost two  to one. More on that later, but the United Kingdom isn't really united anymore.

The issues boiled done to this in Britain's case: money, migrants and sovereignty.

Just take a look at this figure: According to the latest UK Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution to the EU for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10. What they got back in the form of 'rebates'(mostly in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers) was just £4.6bn in 2014/15. And this amount doesn't take into consideration various taxes and fees levied on a suffering British public, nor the high cost of complying with EU diktats on virtually all aspects of daily living.

 Speaking of EU diktats, another significant factor in this election was Mutti Merkal's unilateral decision to open the EU gates to over a million Muslim migrants with more to come. The unelected  EU bureaucrats, believe it or not, actually passed 'legislation' mandating that all EU countries take in a set amount of these Muslim 'refugees' or face a  €300,000  fine per refugee for every one refused entry. That fell through when a number of countries flatly refused to comply, but the very fact that the EU minions felt they had the right to try and impose it did not escape notice. That was especially true in Britain where they already have a significant problem with their existing Muslim population, many of whom are disproportionately on the dole.

Another factor, of course, is the schengen visas, which allow these 'refugees' -or for that matter, migrants from any EU country once they're accepted  as residents - to automatic access to Britain without any formalities or vetting.

And the final reason was not just that the UK is one of the successful nations in the EU whose taxpayers were propping up countries with failed economies like Spain, Greece and Italy among others. It was the increasing strangulation of national sovereignty by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Behind all this, of course, was an effort to bind Germany to Europe, climaxed with German de facto domination in the name of “European unity.” It's the Germans whom benefit most from the EU scam, since it allows them to value their exports in cheaper euros rather than higher value Deutschmarks. And former East German STASI member Angela Merkel has a first hand knowledge of how such totalitarian control works.



It's no accident that Merkel's new proposal in reaction to Brexit involves transforming what's left of the EU into a kind of superstate, where EU countries would have no control over the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, as well as control over their own borders, which means they too will be inundated by Muslim 'refugees.'. All of these factors will be controlled and mandated from Brussels:

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”. [...]

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.

Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.

Given the sentiment in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, I doubt this will be well received. And Britain's exit has sparked calls for referendums in other EU countries, particularly Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria as well as the Visograd countries.





The numbers have undoubtedly gone up since this poll was taken prior to Britain voting to leave.

Of course, France's socialist government has refused to hold a referendum since Hollande's government feeds on EU subsidies. But even if the highly unpopular Hollande isn't removed from office before then, he and the Socialists will have to answer to the voters in 2017. And Marine Le Pen's National Front is growing by leaps and bounds.



The same is true in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders'  Freedom Party (PVV) is likely to double its seats in the Dutch Parliament.



In reaction to Brexit, Wilders said, "We want be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy."

“If I become prime minister, there will be a referendum in the Netherlands on leaving the European Union as well. Let the Dutch people decide.”

So, what are the likely effects?

Much is being made of the drop in the British Pound and the stock market. What's hardly being mentioned is that Germany's economy has been hit far worse.

If I had to guess on which countries will hold referendums next, I'd say traditionally eurosceptic Denmark, Finland, where the few refugees they taken in are not working out at all well and the Visograd countries. Both Denmark and Finland have thriving economies and a traditionally independent nature, and the Visograd countries don't want the Muslim refugees. Spain and Greece are also distinct possibilities, since leaving the debtor's prison the Germans have set up for them would allow them to dump the euro and either pay off their debts in far cheaper drachmas and pesetas or default on them entirely. Neither country has a thriving economy anyway and no one is going to lend them any more significant money in the near future, so they have little to lose. Also, both are popular tourist spots and that isn't going to change either, so cheaper currencies would make vacations in those countries a bargain. And what they do produce, mostly agricultural and food products, could be priced very competitively on the markets.

Fortunately, Britain held onto the Pound rather then being sucked into the euro, so after a period of fluctuation, the UK's basically strong economy should survive just fine. Both Norway and Switzerland likewise decided not to join the EU, kept their own currency and negotiated good trade agreements with the EU. Regardless of the bitterness Merkel and others might have, they will have to do the same with the UK or suffer the loss of millions in trade, money the EU or what's left of it is going to need badly.

Another bonus for Britain is that since the Pound has dropped, her exports will be far cheaper and thus more desirable worldwide.

Another change in store is a major change in Britain's politics. Tory PM David Cameron has already said he's resigning as soon as possible, probably by this fall. And his likely successor is none other than London's former Conservative mayor, Boris Johnson, a firm nationalist whom many Brits regard as the UK's Donald Trump.



Johnson campaigned heavily for 'leave' and has become quite popular in the Conservative Party as a result. According to all the polls, he's the odds on favorite to replace David Cameron as head of the party and the UK's Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, Britain's far left Labour Party is in major trouble.

Labour's openly anti-semitic, pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah party leader Jeremy Corbyn has already cost Labour many of its traditional supporters. But his ineffective campaign for 'remain' caused most of Labour's shadow cabinet* to resign and for him to fire others who expressed doubts about his leadership. He appears to have no intention of quitting as party leader, which is going to be problematic come the next election.

Another problem Labour has is the probable loss of a major source of votes, Scotland. The majority of votes that used to go Labour are now going to the socialist Scottish National Party (SNP), and post Brexit, Labour is likely to be shut out entirely. Scotland likes those EU subsidies very much, thank you and voted almost two to one to stay in the EU. The SNP will almost certainly push for a new referendum for independence from Britain.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the referendum happens and it passes (it likely will if it's held, in my opinion)and if it does, whether the EU if it still exists would allow it in as a member. Taken by itself, Scotland would be, after all, one of those countries who receives far more from the EU than it contributes.

An independent Scotland would likely doom Labour to minority status for quite some time. with Labour non-competitive and a leader like Boris Johnson in charge, we might very well see a resurgent Britain.

If the Brexit vote proves noting else, it shows that the British Lion still retains some of its teeth and that what Winston Churchill called 'this Island race' still retains a lot of its age old love for freedom.




* 'Shadow cabinet' is the term used in the British system to describe faux cabinet ministers named by the opposition party that's not in power. So for instance, there might be a shadow foreign minister, a shadow education minster, et cetera. They have no actual power, but are supposedly experts or at least knowledgeable in their area who keep up with their specialty and might or might not assume those portfolios if their party won the next election.

The reason for this is that unlike many other countries, there's no 'lame duck' period, and power can change hands immediately after an election or a vote of no confidence so these 'shadow ministers' could actually assume those portfolios as real ministers in that event.

Tory Tsunami; Cameron Sweeps UK Elections

 

British PM David Cameron and the Conservative Party rolled to a decisive victory in yesterday's UK elections.

Reminiscent of the U.S. 2014 midterms, the polls had it completely wrong while the bookies once again had it right.

According to the polls, this was supposed to be one of the closest UK elections in years. Defying those predictions, odds that had Cameron and the Tories as a ten to one favorite were easily available.

One might almost think the British media running the polls, almost all of them filled with Leftist Labour voters had a vested interest in presenting Labour as a sure thing.

The conservatives won 331 seats, 5 more than they needed for the 326 seats rquired for a majority in the House of Commons. Labour was crushed, getting only 232 seats, while the Liberal Democrats won only 8 seats and UKip ended up with just one.

To give you an idea of how bad this was, all three opposition party leaders,Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farange resigned once the results became known.

A note of caution for American readers and others unfamiliar with British politics. The Conservatives could be more accurately described centrists, with most of them leaning slightly left except when it comes to fiscal matters. The party most Americans would call real conservatives, The United Kingdom Independent Part (UKip) was soundly crushed, getting far less votes than expected. Part of the reason for that is that Cameron adopted one of their chief issues, Britain's membership in the EU which has become increasingly unpopular. Cameron has promised a nationwide referendum on whether to stay in the EU or leave.

The other big winner last night was Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party(SNP). They may have lost last September's referendum, but they swept all but four parliamentary seats, which particularly hurt Labour. The SNP is now the third largest party in Britain with 56 seats, and they dominate Scotland.

Salmond, who won a seat in the new parliament had this to say: "There's going to be a lion roaring tonight, a Scottish lion, and it's going to roar with a voice that no government of whatever political complexion is going to be able to ignore."

Pish, Jimmy. Sheer pish.And here's why, which leads us to another huge issue in Britain:

Brit PM David Cameron had promised the Scots a number of goodies if they voted to stay in the UK, and now will come the task of delivering. It's called 'devolution of powers' in the local lingo, and what it means is more autonomy for Scotland and the right to set its own tax levels, perhaps. The details were deliberately left kind of foggy.

The Brits plan to draw up a white paper - a parliamentary agenda of sorts - by the end of November, setting out the proposed new powers Scotland's parliament will gain. And a new "Scotland Act" law would then be published if all goes according to plan by January 25, 2015 for the House of Commons to vote on.

However, since there's a new a UK general election due in May 2015, the legislation would not be passed until the new parliament takes over. Cameron is something of a weasel and as a Tory isn't going to get too many votes in Scotland anyway, so what Scotland finally gets at the end might very well be a lot less than they've been led to believe.

Another interesting paradox..since this is a 'devolved system' Scottish MPs in Britain's lower house, the House of Commons get a vote on spending and other budget matters in England while, since Scotland already has semi autonomy and its own independent parliament, English MPs have no voice in how these things are run in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament handles them.

In his victory speech, Cameron underlined his stance on devolution..note what I emphasized:

British Prime Minister David Cameron said he would press ahead with a planned referendum on the country's membership of the European Union and he promised Scotland the most devolution "anywhere in the world" after his resounding election victory.

"Yes, we will deliver that in-out referendum on our future in Europe," Cameron said as he addressed the media after visiting Queen Elizabeth to start the process of forming a new government.

Cameron said he would move ahead as fast as possible with a plan to give more powers to Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly for the pro-independence Scottish National Party.

"In Scotland, our plans are to create the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world with important powers over taxation, and no constitutional settlement will be complete if it did not offer also fairness to England," he said.

One of the reason Scotland's independence referendum lost decisively was because of the fear of losing the generous social welfare benefits Scotland gets under the present system, since the Scottish MPs in the UK parliament can leverage their votes for all sorts of gimmees the entire country pays for, while Scotland's own parliament retains the power to control much of Scotland's affairs.

Scotland in general is far more to the Left than England, which is why Labour getting wiped out there was so devastating to them. Scotland used to be known for its entrepreneurial spirit and business expertise, but these days a lot of Scots like cradle to grave socialism and a huge welfare state, especially if the cost is largely shared by others.

What Cameron is saying here it that he plans to give Scotland a lot more autonomy, with all that implies. And since the Tories get few votes in Scotland and there's a hard core of Conservative politicians who want this essentially unfair arrangement ended, he'll pay no political price at all for doing so.Passing legislation to limit the SNP's voice in affairs that don't directly concern Scotland would give Cameron and the Tories even more of a majority than they already have.

So what does all this mean?

First of all, it's a political win for Barack Obama. Contrary to his horse manure about not wanting to interfere in democratic elections, this president has stuck his nose into four or five elections besides Israel's, providing money, expertise and troops on the ground to his favored candidates. While he lost in Israel, he won in the UK, endorsing Cameron openly as his 'close partner' and providing experienced soldiers including his campaign manager Jim Messina to assist the Tories. What the president will get for that is anyone's guess, but I would expect that it means Cameron's support for Obama's fatuous Iran deal among other things. The rumor also is that Miliband didn't appeal to President Obama personally in some way.

Another interesting factor was the Jewish vote, especially since former Labour leader Ed Miliband is Jewish - at least in terms of ethnicity.So given that Jews have tended to vote to the left in the UK as they do in America, you would have expected Labour to take the majority of the Jewish vote.

They didn't. In fact, some polls indicate that Labour got, at most, just over 20% of the Jewish vote. That made a big difference in constituencies where Jews are prominently represented and the margin was razor thin, like Finchley, Golders Green, Hendon, Brent Central, Ilford North, Hornsey and Wood Green, Hampstead and Kilburn, Harrow East, Harrow West and Hove.

The Labour Party in Britain, like the SLP, is extremely anti-Israel and borderline anti-semitic. It panders openly to the UK's Muslim vote.

 

Ed Miliband is a totally secular Jew who was raised as a red diaper baby by his parents. As such, when he became Labour party leader he did very little to curb the anti-Israel sentiment in the Labor Party. Instead, he went out of his way to show he was out to prove his anti-Israel credentials. During the Gaza war, he issued ridiculously one-sided statements condemning Israel’s defensive actions and calling PM David Cameron’s ‘silence on the killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians’ was ‘inexplicable’. He had nothing to say about Israel's civilians huddling in shelters because of Hamas's missile attacks.

During the months of increased anti-Semitic attacks and statements in the UK, Miliband was silent until things got bad enough that he had to issue a few desultory statements.

When Labour backbenchers in parliament put together a non-binding motion calling for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state Miliband put considerable effort towards whipping his MPs in support. That motion was proposed by a Labour backbencher who just a month before had compared the Israeli army to ISIS.

Britain's Jews exist in a situation were they are outnumbered over ten to one by Muslims, and while not all Muslims hate Jews, the Qu'ran and Hadiths are rife with anti-Semitism. Attacks on Jews and Jewiah institutions almost approaches the level in France.

Miliband was counting on over a third of Britain's Jews to vote for Labour out of Leftost solidarity while still getting the Muslim vote. Instead, he was reminded of how Jewish he really was as many Muslims sat home rather than voting Labour and taking a chance of having a hated Jew as prime minister. Meanwhile Jews, many of whom see Israel as a possible haven the way things are going in the UK deserted Labour in droves. A similar phenomenon is being seen in France with increased support among Jews for Marine Le Pen and the National Party and even here in America (albeit to a lesser degree) with increased Jewish openness to the GOP.


Stay tuned...

Britain And Sweden Send A Clear Message To Israel

 

Today, the British Parliament took a largely symbolic vote to recognize 'Palestine'. The motion and the vote were largely symbolic, carried out by what are known as 'backbenchers', about one third of Parliament consisting of members of the House of Commons who are not in government, mostly from the Left wing Labour Party.

This follows the remarks of new Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, head of a minority coalition of Leftist Social Democrats and Greens in his inaugural speech that "A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine."

The House of Common’s vote that urges David Cameron’s government to “recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution” isn't going to change British policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - at least not yet. But it is a clear sign of which way the wind is blowing.

Let's be clear about what these members of Parliament are voting for. They want Britain to recognize a 'country' with no recognized borders, ruled for the past decade by an unelected dictator who is now in a unity government partnered up with Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group.

That's what they have signaled that they favor. It isn't a 'state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel' but a state of Palestine instead of Israel, since that is what Hamas and Fatah both want.

 

Mahmoud Abbas' draft UN Resolution calls for forcing Israel to turn over all of Judea and Samaria as well as all of East Jerusalem to 'Palestine', so at the very least, they are telling the world they favor the ethnic cleansing of 500,000 Jews from their homeland, the barring of Jews from their holy sites in Jerusalem and since those borders are indefensible, eventually the eradication of any Jewish presence at all in the Middle East.

 

They are also telling the world that appeasing their restive domestic Muslim populations and garnering temporary quiet and Muslim votes means more to them than Jewish lives, most immediately in Israel but eventually in their home countries as well.

And the huge deal the EU is making over Jews building homes in East Jerusalem and even in Gush Etzion, an area legally purchased by Jews back in the 1920's should tell us something else. They are not remotely 'honest brokers.' They have accepted the PLO position in its entirety, and they are, for the most part. simply lying when they talk about favoring negotiations. What they  want is the surrender of Israel , with the Jews moving back to the ghetto that former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban famously referred to as 'the Auschwitz lines.'

That's even more true today then when he first said it.

There's no mistaking this message, and expect it to be repeated by Norway, France, The Netherlands, Denmark and a number of other EU countries. In fact, the EU is already threatening sanctions against Israel if Israel 'fails to make progress in the peace process', which given the demands of Hamas/Fatah means essentially surrendering to their diktats and committing national suicide.

But believe it or not, this is something of a blessing in disguise. And a major opportunity for Israel.

Israel now has the chance to face and accept reality. As far as much of the EU is concerned, no matter what concessions Israel makes, it will never be enough. And no matter what Israel does to defend its people, it will always be disproportionate.

There's also this simple truth. When You're dealing with blackmail, the demands never end, as long as you're willing to keep giving in.

It's time Israel realized that, and acted accordingly, both with the Palestinians and with certain nations in the EU. This doesn't call for any grand speeches, but a simple 'no' and the national will by the government of Israel to do what they were elected to do..look after Israel's interests. And that includes asserting its national rights to the land of Israel. Including building homes and infrastructure for its citizens in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria.

What kind of nation puts up with other countries telling it where it can build houses and schools? For that matter, what other country would put up with the blatant hypocrisy of the EU sticking its nose into any of the other disputed areas of the world and recognizing 'states'? For instance, do you see Britain or the EU recognizing an 'independent Tibet' or an 'independent Kashmir' and throwing billions their way? Could that be because China and India would tell them to mind their own business? In fact, India's National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan told U.S. President Barack Obama openly that the president was 'barking up the wrong tree' when Obama tried to 'Palestinize' Kashmir in February of 2009.

Yes, yes, I know. The EU is a prominent trade partner of Israel. In 2013, (excluding diamonds) bi-lateral trade came to around €31.4 billion (over 147 billion NIS) with EU exports to Israel reaching €17.9 billion (close to 85 billion NIS)in 2013, while imports from Israel were €13.5 billion (63.5 billion NIS). Some 32% of Israel’s exports (excluding diamonds) went to the EU and 34% of its imports (excluding diamonds) came from the EU.

But the numbers don't tell the whole story.

With the exception of Germany, many of the EU countries are in a precarious, debt ridden financial condition. Israel, comparatively, is not. And it is Germany that is by far Israel's biggest trading partner in the EU, a relationship that is likely to continue..especially when you consider Israel's oil and natural gas wealth. Britain does a fair amount of trade with Israel as well.

The amount of trade that goes on isn't because the UK has any great love for Israel.It's because Israel produces things they very much want to buy and purchases things the UK needs to seell..On the other hand, many of the things Israel buys from the UK and most other EU nations can be purchased elsewhere if necessary.

And Israel's trade with Asia is also growing by leaps and bounds, and may actually surpass trade with the US this year. In fact, with the new pro-Israel government in India and the growing trade with China, Vietnam, South Korea and Singapore, Israel's trade with Asia could easily surpass its trade with the EU in a year or two.

To put it bluntly, Israel has other markets for its goods,if it comes to that. And in spite of the threats, much of the EU needs trade with Israel economically much more than they need to continue throwing money at Hamas/Fatah...or disturbing what is a very profitable relationship. That's especially true when it comes to gas and oil not controlled by Vladimir Putin.


read the rest at  The Times of Israel

How Scottish Independence Could End Britain's Nuclear Deterrent

 

Scotland will hold a referendum next month on whether to remain part of the UK or become an independent country. While a large number of voters are undecided and the jury's still out on whether the Scots will vote 'yes' on independence, one interesting result of a yes vote could very well be the end of Britain as a nuclear power.

 

Currently Britain bases all of its arsenal of 58 Trident II D-5 missiles and 160 deployed nuclear warheads in Scotland, along with its four Vanguard-class submarines that can be used to launch them. The subs are based at Faslane, an inlet at the mouth of the River Clyde on Scotland's west coast near Glasgow.

The Scottish National Party(SNP) as well as the other parties pushing for independence have pledged that an independent Scotland would be a nuclear-free zone within four years of breaking off from Great Britain. That position appeals to a large part of the Scottish polity, who feel that the UK basing its nuclear arsenal in Scotland rather than in England or Wales makes Scotland a target in the event of hostilities because it's 'housing England's nukes.'

A “yes” vote would almost certainly force what's left of the United Kingdom to find a new home for the weapons and a new home port for its nuclear subs. The problem is that at this point, that facility simply doesn't exist.Britain might be able to lease the base from Scotland for a couple of years, but that's about it.

To build a new base would cost billions Britain doesn't have and might take close to a decade. It's likely that Britain itself might choose to scrap its nuclear deterrent instead. That's especially true given the state of Britain's military today, including the renowned Royal Navy, which has been downsized almost to the point of being a coastal defense force.

As it is, the UK plans to slash an additional 30,000 personnel from Britain’s already reduced armed forces by 2020, and any kind of military spending is unpopular, particularly among Britain's expanding Muslim electorate. The UK made a point of quickly declining to participate in air strikes on Islamic State President Obama announced earlier this month, limiting their participation to a few humanitarian supply airlifts.

To add to this factor, a vote for Scottish independence would essentially mean a divorce, with the accompanying negotiations over facilities, bases, armaments and personnel. Scotland would need to develop and equip its own defense force, and since Scots are well represented in Britain's military and many would likely want to serve in the newly composed Scottish forces, the attrition in Britain's forces might be even more severe than what's on the drawing board.

 

 Perhaps I should include a personal comment at this point.

There are a great many arguments back and forth about Scottish independence, and frankly I have no particular dog in this fight except that I normally favor people running their own affairs.

As for the military aspect, neither an independent Scotland or what constitutes Britain's current government seem overly valuable as allies just now. But I'm absolutely in favor of the UK scrapping its nuclear deterrent. It's a bad idea to leave nuclear weapons in the hands of who may  likely be taking over in a few years.

 

The Last Straw

Every so often,the question gets asked....is anti-Zionism the same as anti-semitism?

'Anti-Zionism' itself is anti-semitic because it seeks to undermine the right to self-determination for Jews by subjecting Israel to rules, standards and conditions that no other country is subjected to.

It is anti-semitic because it promotes the idea of 'restricted neighborhoods', places where Jews should not be allowed to live simply because they're Jews.

And finally, it is anti-semitic because nearly every 'anti-Zionist' you'll run into is a Jew hater at heart, and usually you don't have to dig too deeply to find it.

British Labour MP Jack Straw, who served as both Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair has never been accused of being a friend of Israel, and in that he's in accord with the majority view in Britain's Labour Party. Straw's stance on Israel is also understandable when you realize that his constituency, Blackburn, has a significant Muslim population, approximately 25%.

But MP Straw has always simply portrayed himself as an anti-Zionist, and kept his real feelings about Jews pretty quiet, until now.

In a roundtable discussion in Parliament on the Middle East, Straw (who's already said he won't stand for re-election next time out) decided to open up with some fairly typical anti-semitic tropes. The biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, he said, was 'unlimited Jewish money' is used to control foreign policy in America. Oh, and that Germany's 'obsession with defending Israel' was another huge obstacle.

This is pretty much standard 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' stuff...the image of the scheming, moneyed Jews plotting to take advantage of the helpless gentiles.

This sort of thing is actually part of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's (EUMC) Working Definition on anti-semitism, which states: “[Anti-Semitism is]… Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

Also in attendance were former Israeli Knesset Member Einat Wilf and the Palestinian ambassador to London who accused Israel of "cultural genocide" and "ethnic cleansing."

"It was appalling to listen to Britain's former foreign secretary," Dr. Wilf said. "His remarks reflect prejudice of the worst kind. We're used to hearing groundless accusations from Palestinian envoys but I thought British diplomats, including former ones, were still capable of a measure of rational thought.

"Throughout the debate I reiterated that the origin of the conflict was the Arab and Palestinian unwillingness to accept the Jewish people's legitimate right to a state of their own, and that as long as that willingness is absent there will be no true solution."


Speaking of solutions, MP Straw also made the news this week speaking about Iran and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. He said, “You could do business with him, and we were able to do business with him. I very profoundly believe that [this] is a new chance for proper negotiations.”

Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain used almost those exact words in 1938 to describe Adolf Hitler, who had his own ideas about solutions, especially when it came to Jews.

That kind of pro-appeasement language is actually not so startling coming from Jack Straw, but a case of the apple not falling too far from the tree.While he has said publicly that he considers himself a Christian, Straw's mother was of Eastern European Jewish stock, and of the far Left, secular type. She met his non-Jewish father when both were members of the Peace Pledge Union. a group that favored appeasement of Hitler at all costs. In 1938, they even campaigned against legislation introduced by Parliament for air raid precautions, and against legislation for military conscription. Straw's father, Walter Straw, along with several other members of the PPU was even arrested during the war for passing out leaflets and erecting posters urging British troops to refuse to fight.

There's not much more to be said about Jack Straw. I repeat his personal history merely as background, and because inevitably someone will claim he's not anti-semitic because of his mother's ethnicity, saying 'but he's Jewish, you know!'

Undoubtedly Mr. Straw has always had these sentiments on Jews, Israel and appeasement. I'm actually glad he finally decided to come clean, and I wish more 'anti-Zionists' would do the same.

'Me And My Big Mouth' - UK's Cameron Backs Off From Syria Attack

British PM David Cameron backed down - way down- from his previous bellicose rhetoric about having the UK 'punish' Syria after what amounted to a political revolt in Parliament and what the Telegraph describes as "..senior military figures expressing concerns over the wisdom of the mission."

Considering how Britain has downsized its military to the point of no return and essentially scuttled the Royal Navy to the level of a coastal defense force, I'd say those senior military figures were right on the money.

Just three hours before Cameron folded, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary said it was “very important” for the UK not to leave it too long before launching strikes against Assad’s regime. Apparently it'll wait for some time.

Unlike our own lawless chief executive, Cameron at least took the Syria strike to Parliament for a vote, unfortunately after he opened his mouth about how gung ho he was to get Britain embroiled.I give him that much.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, and a succession of senior Tories (Conservatives, Cameron's party) had spoken out against the UK being part of a military strike on Syria and let Cameron know in no uncertain terms that he had very little political support for hitting Assad.

So Cameron put his tail between his legs and ran for cover, now saying that he'll wait until he gets, you know, actual proof from the UN inspectors on site before me makes a decision. And he won't even make a decision without a second 'aye' vote from parliament...which isn't likely to happen.

So the Brits will be sitting this out.

The Obama White House, in response said they “respect the British Parliament”.

This is all well and good. I'm firmly opposed to a western intervention in Syria. But just imagine if we needed to Brits to help us out with an important military mission and they weaseled out of a commitment to support us like this. Could you imagine Israel, Canada,Australia or Japan doing it? I couldn't.

Why are we allied with these people again?

The UK's New Law: Internet Bans For Criminals And "A Wider Group Of Offenders"

The UK has a brand new law that enables police and courts to make use of what are called “cyber sanctions” to restrict access to the social networks and instant messaging services in cases of hacking, fraud and online bullying. Sex offenders and those convicted of 'harassment or anti-social behaviour' also can have their internet access restricted or terminated under the new law.

Officials are now looking into whether "cyber tag" technology could be used to monitor offenders and report to authorities if break their bail or sentence conditions by using the internet.

"The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office will consider and scope the development of a new way of enforcing these orders, using ‘cyber-tags’ which are triggered by the offender breaching the conditions that have been put on their internet use, and which will automatically inform the police or probation service," cyber security strategy said.

It added that if the regime is a success restrictions on internet use could be imposed on "a wider group of offenders".

Police forces across the country will also follow the example of the Met’s Police Central e-Crime Unit by recruiting “cyber specials”; internet experts will be encouraged to volunteer as special constables to help investigate online crime.

And exactly who will that 'wider group of offenders' consist of? People who don't don't hold the proper politically correct view of Islam, perhaps? People who have a differing view on Britons being disarmed, or who dislike the government's economic, immigration or foreign policies? People who have a dissenting view on Britain's participation in the EU? The possibilities are endless once this gets started.

And depend of some or all of these definitions of 'a wider group of offenders' to be instituted. Britain is fast approaching the status of a non-free country.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Shock UK Poll: Almost 50% Would Back Nationalist, Right Wing Party

The British appear to be following a Europe-wide trend to the Right.

According to a fairly large poll conducted by the government backed Searchlight Education Trust, fully forty-eight per cent of the 5,054 respondents say they would support a party that “wants to defend the English, create an English parliament, control immigration and challenge Islamic extremism”.

They would also restrict the ­building of mosques and order the flag of St George or the Union Jack be flown on all public buildings.

Sixty per cent thought immigration had been “a bad thing” for England, against 40 per cent who said it had been “good”. Thirty-four per cent said ­immigration should be stopped permanently or until the economy improved, and fifty-two per cent agreed with the statement, “Muslims ­create problems in the UK”.

In the 12 months ending ­September 2010, 238,950 migrants were allowed into Britain, the highest figure since they began keeping records.

The poll was commissioned by Britain's Leftist Ruling Class, who favor massive immigration and multicultural­ism, and the results concerned them. Former Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband and left-wing MP Jon Cruddas officially unveiled the report, and plan to launch Searchlight’s 'Together' project to tackle extremism among white and Islamic ­communities with the slogan: “A plague on both their houses”.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I doubt the minions of the Labour Party are going to get too far selling the delights of multicultural­ism to the British public at this point.

( h/t, Gates of Vienna)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

UK PM Cameron: 'Multiculturalism Has Failed..'

British PM David Cameron made an interesting and surprising speech at the Munich Security Conference yesterday. Here are some key bits:

We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam.

Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

I find this fascinating. Cameron actually sees the threat, but persists in the usual PC blather to obscure it - almost to the point where he's actually telling Muslims what Islam is!

Cameron is saying that the religion and the political/legal structure are distinct, something I think a majority of Muslims would dispute, as would I. I'm curious as to where he draws the line.

If Muslims are following the Qu'ran and the example of Mohammed as given in the Hadiths,are they good Muslims? And if instead many of them are cherry picking various parts of their religion to choose to follow,(something most of us do by the way, Muslim or not, although with Islam the process needs to be a lot more extreme for obvious reasons)does that mean that government is now going to decide what a good Muslim is or is not? And what happens if a significant number of Muslims decide they don't like where government has drawn the line?

The problem is that unlike other religions, Islam was set up from the jump as a religious/political/legal structure, and one that is intolerant of other beliefs at that.

Islam is Islam and the pieces are not easily separated - they were designed to go together.

It's good that the frog is starting to realize that the water is getting uncomfortably warm. The next, more important step is that he's going to have to figure out what to do about it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama White House Backed The Release Of The Lockerbie Bomber

A pity this little tidbit came out during the weekend news doldrums.

As you know, the Libyan Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was freed from a Scottish prison on 'compassionate grounds' in August 2009 because a doctor's report paid for by the Libyan government said he had three months at most to live.

He was flown home to a hero's welcome, greeted at the airport personally by Libyan dictator Moamar Ghaddaffi and ensconced in a luxury villa overlooking the Mediterranean.

Coincidentally, British Petroleum signed a deal to pay out almost $1 billion to Ghadaffi in exchange for access to Libya's oil just before al-Magrahi's release. Tony Blair is supposed to have been instrumental in inking the deal.




Almost a year later, al-Megrahi is doing just fine, and this murderer essentially has escaped justice.

At the time this corrupt deal went down, the Obama Administration claimed to have been taken by surprise and voiced opposition to the deal.

As recently as last week when the news came out that al-Megrahi was doing fine healthwise and could live for decades, President Barack Hussein Obama claimed that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry."

As it turns out, this was sheer bolshoi and kabuki outrage.

According to The Australian, the Obama Administration was not only fully informed of what was going on but actually had Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London lobby for the 'compassionate release' a week before Megrahi was freed.

In a letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, LeBaron wrote that "if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that al-Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

The Scots ( especially since there was that juicy oil deal pending) chose to interpret the lukewarm US response to keeping al-Megrahi in custody and the remarks on how the US favored 'compassionate release' as tacit approval.By the way, this violated an agreement between Britain and the US ( the Brits were concerned we;'d hang this murderer) that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve out their sentence in a Scottish prison.

The Obama Administration has apparently tried to keep the letter secret, and refused permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications". But apparently it leaked out.

Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe on the al-Megrahi release after it was revealed that far from being at death's door, he was doing just fine.

The committee had asked a number of Scottish politicians - including Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - to appear before the Senate committee to answer questions at the hearing next week about al-Megrahi's release.

They refused. But perhaps President Obama could be persuaded to appear.There are 270 innocent dead, most of them Americans and the ones they left behind who deserve some candor.

Just to make a refreshing change.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Breaking - Brown Resigns; Cameron Is New UK PM

Ah yes, another surprise twist!

When Brown announced yesterday that he was stepping down as Labour leader, it seeme dobvious that Labour and the Liberals were going to get into bed with each other and form a coalition. But apparently the Lib-Lab talks broke down again.

Today, Gordon brown shocked the country by suddenly resigning his office...after which Conservative leader David Cameron headed to Buckingham Palace to see the Queen,who asked him the traditional question: "Will you form the new administration?"

As soon as Cameron said yes,he officially became Prime Minister:

Tory leader David Cameron has entered Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time - and said: "This is going to be hard and difficult work."

He told the waiting media: "On behalf of the whole country I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing Prime Minister for his long record of dedicated public service."

And he added: "I aim to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats."

US President Barack Obama is thought to have already congratulated him by telephone, while Downing Street staff showed Mr Cameron's pregnant wife Samantha around Number 10.

The couple arrived there straight from Buckingham Palace where the Tory leader had accepted the Queen's request for him to form a new government.

That's it, as opposed to the US. No transition,no last minute nothing. Brown resigns, he's out - immediately. Cameron gets called in, pops in to see the Queen, done deal.

As part of the deal, Nick Clegg is reportedly slated to become Deputy Prime Minister.

It's important to note that The deal isn't formally done yet between the Conservatives and the Liberals, although it's probably been framed out. Gordon Brown was sup[posed to have waited a while longer and then resigned to continue a continuity of government, but apparently he decided otherwise for his own reasons.

It's an open question how long the new coalition can last, The Tories and the Libs are not exactly on the same wave length politically. The answer will probably come after the reported referendum on electoral reform the Libs want is held.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!