Source: FrontPage Magazine
By: Ryan Mauro
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It was the coup heard around the world.
No sooner had the Honduran military overthrown the country’s leftist president, Manuel Zelaya, than the international community erupted in outrage. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the military’s intervention, and called for Zelaya to return to power. The World Bank is temporarily suspending loans to Honduras. Venezuela and Ecuador have threatened military retaliation if their embassies or staff members are harmed. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has even threatened war, warning that “I’ll do everything possible to overthrow” the transition government. Even President Obama has joined the international chorus denouncing the coup as a subversion of democracy and the rule of law.
But is such censure justified? Although the coup may not have been the best course of action, in removing Zelaya the Honduran military was acting to preserve the checks and balances required for a democracy to function. Moreover, if Zelaya were allowed to return to power, as some now urge, there is reason to believe that it would be a blow for the country’s democracy and a victory for Hugo Chavez, who sees Honduras as a key piece in his plan to create a socialist bloc opposed to the United States in Latin America.
Zelaya was democratically elected in 2006, but that does not necessarily mean he is a democrat. Indeed, Zelaya gave every indication that he intended to hold on to power beyond the one term that he is allowed under the Honduran constitution. To that end, Zelaya had called for a national referendum on whether a vote should be held in November to establish an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution to allow for presidents to run for re-election. This referendum was opposed by the Congress, Zelaya’s own political party, and most important, by the Supreme Court, which ruled it illegal, as did the other legal authorities in the country. Zelaya ordered the military to distribute the ballots anyway. When they refused, he fired the head of the armed forces, military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez.
This firing was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, which required that Vasquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused to comply. The Attorney General then asked Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Zelaya due to his blatant disregard for the country’s democratic laws. Undeterred, Zelaya assembled his supporters, who marched on the military base where the ballots were being stored. The military handed them over rather than risk a violent confrontation. Zelaya and his supporters then distributed the ballots, and local authorities were ordered to assemble polling stations nationwide. Against this background, there was every reason to think that Zelaya intended to install himself as a president-for-life in the mold of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
It was to avert that possibility that the coup took place. But even if strategically unwise, the coup cannot be called undemocratic – as it has been by many so world leaders, including President Obama. It was ordered by Congress and the Supreme Court, who felt Zelaya had to be removed for unconstitutionally acting in defiance of the other branches of power. In deposing Zelaya and exiling him to Costa Rica, the military merely enforced the law. Rather than form an undemocratic military regime, the President of the National Congress, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as the country’s leader, as constitutionally required, and the presidential elections for November 29 are still planned to be held. In contrast to the country’s political direction under Zelaya, Honduras has not become a dictatorship.
All of this seems lost on President Obama. “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,” Obama has said, insisting that it “would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.” Ironically, Obama has attacked the legitimacy of the new government in far harsher terms than he has challenged the legitimacy of the Iranian government. Never mind that one bases its legitimacy on a democratic coup and the other on a fraudulent election and the brutal repression of democratic protestors.
Obama is likely concerned about enflaming anti-Americanism in the region, but he should consider that his support for Zelaya plays into the wrong hands. Zelaya has been no friend of the United States or of democracy. He is an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and under his rule, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a socialist alliance of countries in Latin America that oppose the United States. He signed a declaration with Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Dominica calling the creation of “an alternative to the capitalist system,” blaming it for everything from famine, to disease, to global warming. “Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction,” the document read. He also lamented the “decades-long relationship of dominance by the United States.”
This latest crisis is not the only time Zelaya has been accused of undermining democracy. In a blatant attempt at censorship, he ordered television networks to broadcast government-produced news programs in response to alleged “misinformation” to which the public was being exposed.
One should not discount the possibility that the coup was a strategic mistake. Although their intentions were noble, the government and the military may have chosen the wrong way to deprive Zelaya of power. In particular, it may have been wiser to try to impeach Zelaya or to see how the presidential elections turned out, before taking more forceful action.
Still, the fact that the government may have erred in launching the coup without exhausting all other options does not justify the international reaction. Those critics who hail Zelaya as a pillar of democracy and the rule of law, and his opponents as vigilantes illegally seeking to suppress freedom, are making a grave mistake.
2 July 2009
14 June 2009
Revealed: How the Kinnocks have enjoyed an
astonishing £10m ride on the EU gravy train
Source: Daily Mail
By Simon Mcgee
14th June 2009
Neil and Glenys Kinnock received more than £10million in pay, allowances and pension entitlements during their time working at the European Union in Brussels.
The astonishing figure can be revealed after a Mail on Sunday investigation into the couple’s lavish lifestyle funded from the public purse.
Lady Kinnock, who was appointed Europe Minister by Gordon Brown this month, was an MEP for 15 years. Her husband, who failed to win a General Election as Labour leader, was an EU Commissioner for ten years until 2004.
Their generous package of salary and perks included:
* A total of £775,000 in wages for Lady Kinnock and £1.85 million for her husband, adding up to £2,625,000.
* Allowances for Lady Kinnock’s staff and office costs of £2.9million.
* A £64,564 ‘entertainment allowance’ for Lord Kinnock.
* A total of five publicly-funded pensions, worth £4.4million, allowing them to retire on £183,000 a year.
* A housing allowance that allowed them both to claim accommodation costs although, as a married couple, they lived in the same house in the Belgian capital between 1995 and 2004.
Now back at the centre of British politics, Lady Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords while her husband played a key role in quelling last weekend’s rebellion against Mr Brown.
The Mail on Sunday questioned a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks in detail about the figures, calculated by the think-tank Open Europe. It campaigns for greater transparency in Brussels.
She disputed only one figure – a ‘transition allowance’ Lord Kinnock received on his departure from Brussels, worth £355,143 at today’s exchange rate. She said the true figure was lower, but refused to reveal it.
The European Parliament does not publish a breakdown of expenses that MEPs have to claim, rather than receive automatically, so Open Europe has estimated Lady Kinnock’s travel costs based on the average for MEPs.
These are in addition to her wages and the allowances she was eligible to receive automatically. The estimates are £1,179,482 for travel between Britain and the Continent over 15 years, and £45,777 for travel outside the EU.
Lady Kinnock is entitled to a transition allowance running into tens of thousands of pounds, designed to keep ex-MEPs going until they find new employment, but her ministerial appointment means she will forgo it.
Glenys Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords
However, questions were being asked last night about claims for the Kinnocks’ three-bedroom Brussels home, where they lived together between 1995 and 2004.
They bought it after Lady Kinnock’s election in 1994, and sold it after Lord Kinnock stood down from the Commission in 2004.
A Brussels estate agent said the house would probably have cost about £120,000 in 1994, and would have doubled in value by the time it was sold.
During his ten years in Brussels, Lord Kinnock automatically received residential allowances totalling £276,962.
And his wife has been claiming the controversial daily attendance allowance, designed to cover the cost of accommodation and subsistence when MEPs are in Brussels and Strasbourg for meetings. But she refused to say how many days she claimed for.
Asked if she claimed the attendance allowance while her husband received his residential allowance, a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks said: ‘Glenys Kinnock claimed the per diem attendance allowance to which she was entitled for each parliamentary day attended. European Commissioners’ residential allowance is paid at 15 per cent of a Commissioner’s salary.’
The European Parliament’s secrecy over expenses means it will not disclose how much Lady Kinnock claimed in daily allowances, although Open Europe estimates it to be £500,000. The Mail on Sunday has not included this in the £10million of salary, automatic allowances and pension.
At present MEPs receive €298 (£270) each day they sign a register at the European Parliament. However, it is open to abuse and in 2004 Austrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin filmed MEPs turning up to sign in early in the morning, only to head straight to the airport without doing any work.
Dr Martin, a former investigative journalist, recorded Lady Kinnock leaving the Parliament building within an hour of signing in on 26 occasions during his two-year investigation.
A Kinnock family spokeswoman said: ‘All payments to Glenys Kinnock, including the salary to which she was entitled as an MEP, were exactly the same as made to all UK MEPs. Staff and office expenses were exactly the same as for all other MEPs.’
The couple have profited by £120,000 on their property in Brussels, and they also own a home in North London
On Lord Kinnock’s income and perks, she said: ‘All of these details are a matter of public record.’
Based on Open Europe’s calculations of the pensions due to the Kinnocks for their work in the EU – shown to the couple and not disputed – they will get a combined annual pension of around £183,000, from five separate pensions.
The think-tank said Lady Kinnock can expect £67,835 a year from two pensions as an MEP: one a £19,370 basic pension and the other £48,465 from the European Parliament’s Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme which sees the taxpayer paying £2 for every £1 put into the pot by MEPs.
Her new ministerial pay package will be used to top up contributions to the basic MEP pension. She is also already claiming a teachers’ pension.
Mr Kinnock is receiving one pension as a former MP of 25 years’ service, thought to amount to £32,000 a year.
He has a second pension for his EU job in Brussels, worth more than £80,000.
Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at financial consultants Hargreaves Lansdown, calculated that Lady Kinnock’s two MEP pensions and Lord Kinnock’s Commission pension would alone cost an ordinary taxpayer £4.4million to buy in cash.
Three homes Kinnocks: The pair also own a home in South Wales
Mr McPhail said: ‘Wow. Not bad for a failed party leader and his wife. But people will find this scale of indulgence on the part of politicians nauseating, especially at a time when British workers are having their pensions cut.’
The Kinnocks have also built up a valuable property portfolio, with homes in London and Wales.
In 1992, they bought a house in Ealing, West London, for £445,000. They sold it in January 2007 for £1,515,000 and bought a smart three-storey property in Islington, North London, for £815,000. They also own a house in Peterston-super-Ely, a village outside Cardiff, thought to be worth £700,000.
Other members of the Kinnock family have also benefited from the Brussels gravy train. Son Stephen’s first job after Cambridge University was as a research assistant to an MEP.
His Danish wife Helle – tipped as a future prime minister of Denmark – sat as an MEP from 1999 to 2004, while the Kinnocks’ daughter Rachel was her mother’s research assistant at the European Parliament. Rachel now works for Gordon Brown in the political unit at No10, paid by the Labour Party.
By Simon Mcgee
14th June 2009
Neil and Glenys Kinnock received more than £10million in pay, allowances and pension entitlements during their time working at the European Union in Brussels.
The astonishing figure can be revealed after a Mail on Sunday investigation into the couple’s lavish lifestyle funded from the public purse.
Lady Kinnock, who was appointed Europe Minister by Gordon Brown this month, was an MEP for 15 years. Her husband, who failed to win a General Election as Labour leader, was an EU Commissioner for ten years until 2004.
Their generous package of salary and perks included:
* A total of £775,000 in wages for Lady Kinnock and £1.85 million for her husband, adding up to £2,625,000.
* Allowances for Lady Kinnock’s staff and office costs of £2.9million.
* A £64,564 ‘entertainment allowance’ for Lord Kinnock.
* A total of five publicly-funded pensions, worth £4.4million, allowing them to retire on £183,000 a year.
* A housing allowance that allowed them both to claim accommodation costs although, as a married couple, they lived in the same house in the Belgian capital between 1995 and 2004.
Now back at the centre of British politics, Lady Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords while her husband played a key role in quelling last weekend’s rebellion against Mr Brown.
The Mail on Sunday questioned a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks in detail about the figures, calculated by the think-tank Open Europe. It campaigns for greater transparency in Brussels.
She disputed only one figure – a ‘transition allowance’ Lord Kinnock received on his departure from Brussels, worth £355,143 at today’s exchange rate. She said the true figure was lower, but refused to reveal it.
The European Parliament does not publish a breakdown of expenses that MEPs have to claim, rather than receive automatically, so Open Europe has estimated Lady Kinnock’s travel costs based on the average for MEPs.
These are in addition to her wages and the allowances she was eligible to receive automatically. The estimates are £1,179,482 for travel between Britain and the Continent over 15 years, and £45,777 for travel outside the EU.
Lady Kinnock is entitled to a transition allowance running into tens of thousands of pounds, designed to keep ex-MEPs going until they find new employment, but her ministerial appointment means she will forgo it.
Glenys Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords
However, questions were being asked last night about claims for the Kinnocks’ three-bedroom Brussels home, where they lived together between 1995 and 2004.
They bought it after Lady Kinnock’s election in 1994, and sold it after Lord Kinnock stood down from the Commission in 2004.
A Brussels estate agent said the house would probably have cost about £120,000 in 1994, and would have doubled in value by the time it was sold.
During his ten years in Brussels, Lord Kinnock automatically received residential allowances totalling £276,962.
And his wife has been claiming the controversial daily attendance allowance, designed to cover the cost of accommodation and subsistence when MEPs are in Brussels and Strasbourg for meetings. But she refused to say how many days she claimed for.
Asked if she claimed the attendance allowance while her husband received his residential allowance, a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks said: ‘Glenys Kinnock claimed the per diem attendance allowance to which she was entitled for each parliamentary day attended. European Commissioners’ residential allowance is paid at 15 per cent of a Commissioner’s salary.’
The European Parliament’s secrecy over expenses means it will not disclose how much Lady Kinnock claimed in daily allowances, although Open Europe estimates it to be £500,000. The Mail on Sunday has not included this in the £10million of salary, automatic allowances and pension.
At present MEPs receive €298 (£270) each day they sign a register at the European Parliament. However, it is open to abuse and in 2004 Austrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin filmed MEPs turning up to sign in early in the morning, only to head straight to the airport without doing any work.
Dr Martin, a former investigative journalist, recorded Lady Kinnock leaving the Parliament building within an hour of signing in on 26 occasions during his two-year investigation.
A Kinnock family spokeswoman said: ‘All payments to Glenys Kinnock, including the salary to which she was entitled as an MEP, were exactly the same as made to all UK MEPs. Staff and office expenses were exactly the same as for all other MEPs.’
The couple have profited by £120,000 on their property in Brussels, and they also own a home in North London
On Lord Kinnock’s income and perks, she said: ‘All of these details are a matter of public record.’
Based on Open Europe’s calculations of the pensions due to the Kinnocks for their work in the EU – shown to the couple and not disputed – they will get a combined annual pension of around £183,000, from five separate pensions.
The think-tank said Lady Kinnock can expect £67,835 a year from two pensions as an MEP: one a £19,370 basic pension and the other £48,465 from the European Parliament’s Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme which sees the taxpayer paying £2 for every £1 put into the pot by MEPs.
Her new ministerial pay package will be used to top up contributions to the basic MEP pension. She is also already claiming a teachers’ pension.
Mr Kinnock is receiving one pension as a former MP of 25 years’ service, thought to amount to £32,000 a year.
He has a second pension for his EU job in Brussels, worth more than £80,000.
Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at financial consultants Hargreaves Lansdown, calculated that Lady Kinnock’s two MEP pensions and Lord Kinnock’s Commission pension would alone cost an ordinary taxpayer £4.4million to buy in cash.
Three homes Kinnocks: The pair also own a home in South Wales
Mr McPhail said: ‘Wow. Not bad for a failed party leader and his wife. But people will find this scale of indulgence on the part of politicians nauseating, especially at a time when British workers are having their pensions cut.’
The Kinnocks have also built up a valuable property portfolio, with homes in London and Wales.
In 1992, they bought a house in Ealing, West London, for £445,000. They sold it in January 2007 for £1,515,000 and bought a smart three-storey property in Islington, North London, for £815,000. They also own a house in Peterston-super-Ely, a village outside Cardiff, thought to be worth £700,000.
Other members of the Kinnock family have also benefited from the Brussels gravy train. Son Stephen’s first job after Cambridge University was as a research assistant to an MEP.
His Danish wife Helle – tipped as a future prime minister of Denmark – sat as an MEP from 1999 to 2004, while the Kinnocks’ daughter Rachel was her mother’s research assistant at the European Parliament. Rachel now works for Gordon Brown in the political unit at No10, paid by the Labour Party.
11 June 2009
Welcome Back, Carter
Source: AnnCoulter.com
June 10, 2009
Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.
June 10, 2009
Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.
10 June 2009
Sir Tom Jones 'is English'
Source: The Times
10 Jun 2009
Sir Tom Jones, dubbed the Voice of the Valleys and Wales' most famous export after coal, is actually English.
The singer was born Thomas Woodward in Pontypridd on June 7, 1940, and boasts of growing up as a "proud, proud Welshman". He changed his name to Jones before finding fame.
Public records of the 1911 census for Wales show that Sir Tom, 69, is actually three-quarters English, with three of his grandparents hailing from the West Country.
Lifelong fan and South Wales historian Margaret Owen, 54, said: "I can't believe it. Tom is the symbol of Welsh manliness around the world and has been for decades.
"It is quite a shock to discover he has more English blood in his veins than Welsh. But we still love him - he's lovely."
Official census records show his paternal grandparents James Woodward was an ironmongers haulier born in Gloucestershire and Anne Woodward was from Wiltshire.
His maternal grandmother, Ada Jones, was born in Sir Tom's hometown in Pontypridd, but her parents came from Somerset and Wiltshire.
The only Welsh blood came from great-grandfather Albert Jones, a miner from Cardiff.
Miss Owen added: "A lot of people moved from around Britain to South Wales at the end of the century because of the boom in the mining industry."
Sir Tom, knighted in 2006, now lives in Bel Air, Los Angeles, with his wife Linda, although he regularly visits family and friends home.
[ed. Proof that being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse...]
10 Jun 2009
Sir Tom Jones, dubbed the Voice of the Valleys and Wales' most famous export after coal, is actually English.
The singer was born Thomas Woodward in Pontypridd on June 7, 1940, and boasts of growing up as a "proud, proud Welshman". He changed his name to Jones before finding fame.
Public records of the 1911 census for Wales show that Sir Tom, 69, is actually three-quarters English, with three of his grandparents hailing from the West Country.
Lifelong fan and South Wales historian Margaret Owen, 54, said: "I can't believe it. Tom is the symbol of Welsh manliness around the world and has been for decades.
"It is quite a shock to discover he has more English blood in his veins than Welsh. But we still love him - he's lovely."
Official census records show his paternal grandparents James Woodward was an ironmongers haulier born in Gloucestershire and Anne Woodward was from Wiltshire.
His maternal grandmother, Ada Jones, was born in Sir Tom's hometown in Pontypridd, but her parents came from Somerset and Wiltshire.
The only Welsh blood came from great-grandfather Albert Jones, a miner from Cardiff.
Miss Owen added: "A lot of people moved from around Britain to South Wales at the end of the century because of the boom in the mining industry."
Sir Tom, knighted in 2006, now lives in Bel Air, Los Angeles, with his wife Linda, although he regularly visits family and friends home.
[ed. Proof that being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse...]
Enough Drivel About The BNP, Already
Source: Daily Telegraph
Author: James Delingpole
June 9th, 2009
God, I am sick to death of the BNP. I don't mean the party - they only got two seats in the Euro Elections, for heaven's sake - I mean all the rival politicians and commentators and dinner party chatterers falling over themselves to say just how utterly disgusted they are by this victory for the racist "far right."
In yesterday's Twittersphere the talk was of little else and the subtexts of every Tweet could be loosely translated thus: "See what a caring, lovely, non-racist person I am?","Do you know just how many black people are close personal friends of mine? An awful lot, let me tell you"; "I have a West Indian supermarket near me. It sells all sorts of marvellous ethnic things: smelly dried fish, ackee fruit. The proprietor is a delightful fellow and we always have a jolly chat. Did I mention he's black? Well he is and it doesn't affect our relationship one bit"; "Oh, well I live next to an Indian restaurant and I so much prefer a lovely Sag Aloo to fish and chips with their awful racist Union Jack connotations. Kinder to the environment too. And the chap who runs it has taught me to say "two Cobra beers and some spicy poppadoms" in Gujerati." etc.
Next time, what I suggest these people do is come clean and Tweet the subtext. At least then we won't to have endure their half-baked, ill-thought-out, glib, bien-pensant inanities sullying one of the most important political debates of our age.
The people who voted BNP are on the front line of this debate. They don't have the luxury of being able to nip in and out of a cornucopia of simply marvellous ethnic food shops, and thrillingly directional Grime Bhangra clubs and delightful arthouse cinemas selling wholemeal samosas and showing seasons of Iranian cinema, before retreating to their lovely safe white enclaves. It's on their doorstep, all the time, and there's no escape: for the white working classes (of the North and North East especially) multiculturalism has been a disaster.
And this isn't, pace some tedious bien-pensant commentators, about racism pure and simple. It's partly about immigration numbers - far greater than the indigenous communities are capable of absorbing without disruption. Mainly, though, it's about assimilation.
The racial tension and unrest in Britain now would not be half so great if were not for the fact that thanks to the imbecilic liberal-leftist philosophy of "multiculturalism" two generations of immigrant communities have actually been encouraged by the apparatus of state and at taxpayer's expense NOT to assimilate. In some areas of towns in the north - Bradford, for example - white people are made to feel that they don't belong any more. And these white people whose families have been there for generations are supposed to go, what, exactly? "Ah! Bless! Bah gum I don't 'alf love living in this wonderful melting pot"?
However dangerous the BNP are - not, in fact, very, I don't think - they're not nearly so dangerous as the liberal commentators who write meaningless "Thought For The Day" drivel like "Far better would have been to enjoin our principal parties to get their act together and offer a viable politics of hope to eclipse the dark underbelly of society."
Every time a politician, media commentator, or glib dinner-party-chatterer bangs on about how disgusting they find the BNP, what they are unwittingly (at least I hope it's unwittingly) doing is shutting down the debate. "Here is a topic so beyond the pale of reasonable discussion that the only proper reaction is to pass the smelling salts, bury your head in the sand, and hope it all goes away," is what they are saying.
But it won't go away. Read Mark Steyn's America Alone: the Islamisation of Europe - it's one of the pressing problems of our age. (Why the hell do you think Geert Wilders did so well in the Euro Elections? You think, what, people just liked his crazy name?). Unchecked - and almost worse - unassimilated immigration is a threat to all Western countries.
And it's not "racist" to want to discuss this issue. It doesn't automatically make you hateful or a Nazi or the next Nick Griffin. It just means that you think.
Author: James Delingpole
June 9th, 2009
God, I am sick to death of the BNP. I don't mean the party - they only got two seats in the Euro Elections, for heaven's sake - I mean all the rival politicians and commentators and dinner party chatterers falling over themselves to say just how utterly disgusted they are by this victory for the racist "far right."
In yesterday's Twittersphere the talk was of little else and the subtexts of every Tweet could be loosely translated thus: "See what a caring, lovely, non-racist person I am?","Do you know just how many black people are close personal friends of mine? An awful lot, let me tell you"; "I have a West Indian supermarket near me. It sells all sorts of marvellous ethnic things: smelly dried fish, ackee fruit. The proprietor is a delightful fellow and we always have a jolly chat. Did I mention he's black? Well he is and it doesn't affect our relationship one bit"; "Oh, well I live next to an Indian restaurant and I so much prefer a lovely Sag Aloo to fish and chips with their awful racist Union Jack connotations. Kinder to the environment too. And the chap who runs it has taught me to say "two Cobra beers and some spicy poppadoms" in Gujerati." etc.
Next time, what I suggest these people do is come clean and Tweet the subtext. At least then we won't to have endure their half-baked, ill-thought-out, glib, bien-pensant inanities sullying one of the most important political debates of our age.
The people who voted BNP are on the front line of this debate. They don't have the luxury of being able to nip in and out of a cornucopia of simply marvellous ethnic food shops, and thrillingly directional Grime Bhangra clubs and delightful arthouse cinemas selling wholemeal samosas and showing seasons of Iranian cinema, before retreating to their lovely safe white enclaves. It's on their doorstep, all the time, and there's no escape: for the white working classes (of the North and North East especially) multiculturalism has been a disaster.
And this isn't, pace some tedious bien-pensant commentators, about racism pure and simple. It's partly about immigration numbers - far greater than the indigenous communities are capable of absorbing without disruption. Mainly, though, it's about assimilation.
The racial tension and unrest in Britain now would not be half so great if were not for the fact that thanks to the imbecilic liberal-leftist philosophy of "multiculturalism" two generations of immigrant communities have actually been encouraged by the apparatus of state and at taxpayer's expense NOT to assimilate. In some areas of towns in the north - Bradford, for example - white people are made to feel that they don't belong any more. And these white people whose families have been there for generations are supposed to go, what, exactly? "Ah! Bless! Bah gum I don't 'alf love living in this wonderful melting pot"?
However dangerous the BNP are - not, in fact, very, I don't think - they're not nearly so dangerous as the liberal commentators who write meaningless "Thought For The Day" drivel like "Far better would have been to enjoin our principal parties to get their act together and offer a viable politics of hope to eclipse the dark underbelly of society."
Every time a politician, media commentator, or glib dinner-party-chatterer bangs on about how disgusting they find the BNP, what they are unwittingly (at least I hope it's unwittingly) doing is shutting down the debate. "Here is a topic so beyond the pale of reasonable discussion that the only proper reaction is to pass the smelling salts, bury your head in the sand, and hope it all goes away," is what they are saying.
But it won't go away. Read Mark Steyn's America Alone: the Islamisation of Europe - it's one of the pressing problems of our age. (Why the hell do you think Geert Wilders did so well in the Euro Elections? You think, what, people just liked his crazy name?). Unchecked - and almost worse - unassimilated immigration is a threat to all Western countries.
And it's not "racist" to want to discuss this issue. It doesn't automatically make you hateful or a Nazi or the next Nick Griffin. It just means that you think.
1 June 2009
Stopping the Taliban Mafia
By: Ryan Mauro
June 01, 2009
As the world waits to see if the Pakistani military has the will and the ability to save the country from the Taliban, an equally pressing question confronts the international community: How can the Taliban’s funding sources be located and severed in order to prevent them from becoming the first nuclear-armed terrorist group?
In an interview last week, General David Petraeus said that the Taliban is being funded with “hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars” annually from drugs, foreign donations, and “locally generated” sources of income, particularly organized crime. As their responsibility for up to a third of the bank robberies in Karachi in recent years shows, the Taliban has become a hybrid terrorist mafia.
A Pakistani intelligence report says that militants under the command of Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Pakistani Taliban engage in “criminal activities like kidnapping for ransom, bank robbery, street robbery and other heinous crimes” to help finance their activities. Some companies owned by members of the Mehsud tribe in Pakistan are paying 40 percent of their income to the Taliban, sometimes by force and sometimes of their own accord. The sale of cigarettes and salvaged vehicles are other business investments.
The Swat Valley, the site of the current Pakistani military offensive following the Islamists’ establishment of Sharia Law, is exceedingly important for the Taliban. Not only was it a safe haven for extremists, but its emerald mines and timber were good business. A Taliban spokesperson in the Swat Valley confirmed in April that they received one-third of the profit from the emerald mines, which are said to be bringing the Taliban at least $3 million annually, an amount that increases as more mines are utilized.
The Taliban also use the money from the mines to maintain local support. The Taliban spokesperson said the rest of the profit goes to the workers. During the takeover of one mine near Swat Valley, the Taliban told the mineworkers that they’d receive half the profit.
It is also cheap for the Taliban to operate in Karachi because of the support of local Pashtuns that sometimes hold secret fundraisers for them. Tribes in Kandahar, Afghanistan, also provide Taliban operatives with funding for medical treatment, food, fuel, and other expenses. The Taliban benefit from the tribes’ local culture, which requires “taking care of their own,” as explained by one Asia Times reporter who sat in on a fundraising meeting in Karachi that brought in over $11,600.
The drug trafficking element of the Taliban’s fundraising has been widely covered. The United Nations Drug Office believes the Taliban made up to $300 million from opium sales in 2008. Money is not only made from the sales, but from also charging “protection fees” for those moving the drugs over the Afghanistan borders and for the drug laboratories. Afghan opium cultivation in 2008 fell nearly 20 percent, and production fell six percent. However, according to Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the U.N. Drug Office, this does not reflect progress by those fighting the Taliban. The Taliban has simply produced so much that they have reduced cultivation and are stockpiling current supplies to artificially keep prices higher.
The focus on the Taliban’s organized crime activity shouldn’t distract from the need to stop foreign funding of the group. Supporters in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait provide perhaps as much income for the Taliban as drug sales. The United Arab Emirates is another hot-spot for the Taliban, with the late high-level commander Mullah Dadullah reportedly visiting the country in early 2006.
Most of this foreign funding comes from an unofficial network called hawala, which is often used in countries that don’t have a functioning banking system. An estimated $13-17 billion is transferred through hawala each year. Free of any signed documents, fees, regulation, or recording mechanisms and minimal delays, hawala is a cheap and attractive system for criminals, terrorists, or even average citizens.
If Justice Salam, who served on the Taliban’s Supreme Court, is to be believed, then private citizens in the Arab world and Pakistan are not the only foreign financiers of the Taliban. He claims that the intelligence services of Pakistan, Iran, and, most surprisingly, Russia, are also providing financing as well as weapons. These three countries have also been singled out for assisting the Taliban by no less an authority that the Taliban’s former deputy chief of finance.
Hamid Mir, a Pakistani reporter who has significant contacts in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and is the only journalist to have interviewed Osama Bin Laden after 9/11, told me the same thing in 2006. He accused Iran and Russia of supporting the Taliban, saying that “Russia is covertly supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The spokesman of the Afghan Interior Ministry, Lutaffulah Mashal, told me in September 2005 in Kabul that the Taliban are getting modern Russian-made weapons. He suspected that Russia may be taking revenge on the U.S. for supporting the Afghan Mujahideen against Russia in the 1980s.”
It is more likely that the alleged Russian assistance to the Taliban does not come from direct government orders, but from the activity of the Russian mafia working with corrupt officials. One such Russian criminal is Viktor But, a former high-level Soviet officer “suspected of being the main gunrunner to al-Qaida and the Taliban” who said in 2002 that he was living in Russia without any action being taken by the authorities. He was ultimately arrested on February 6, 2008 in Thailand.
In the battle against the Taliban, the struggle against terrorists and the struggle against organized crime have become intertwined. As the Taliban loses support among the Pakistani population, it will morph into an Islamist mafia, relying upon bribes and force to sustain itself. Defeating the Taliban will not only require a Pakistani military presence to free the locals from fear, but competent law enforcement and an international effort to better regulate the hawala networks that will enable criminals and terrorists to operate for years to come.
June 01, 2009
As the world waits to see if the Pakistani military has the will and the ability to save the country from the Taliban, an equally pressing question confronts the international community: How can the Taliban’s funding sources be located and severed in order to prevent them from becoming the first nuclear-armed terrorist group?
In an interview last week, General David Petraeus said that the Taliban is being funded with “hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars” annually from drugs, foreign donations, and “locally generated” sources of income, particularly organized crime. As their responsibility for up to a third of the bank robberies in Karachi in recent years shows, the Taliban has become a hybrid terrorist mafia.
A Pakistani intelligence report says that militants under the command of Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Pakistani Taliban engage in “criminal activities like kidnapping for ransom, bank robbery, street robbery and other heinous crimes” to help finance their activities. Some companies owned by members of the Mehsud tribe in Pakistan are paying 40 percent of their income to the Taliban, sometimes by force and sometimes of their own accord. The sale of cigarettes and salvaged vehicles are other business investments.
The Swat Valley, the site of the current Pakistani military offensive following the Islamists’ establishment of Sharia Law, is exceedingly important for the Taliban. Not only was it a safe haven for extremists, but its emerald mines and timber were good business. A Taliban spokesperson in the Swat Valley confirmed in April that they received one-third of the profit from the emerald mines, which are said to be bringing the Taliban at least $3 million annually, an amount that increases as more mines are utilized.
The Taliban also use the money from the mines to maintain local support. The Taliban spokesperson said the rest of the profit goes to the workers. During the takeover of one mine near Swat Valley, the Taliban told the mineworkers that they’d receive half the profit.
It is also cheap for the Taliban to operate in Karachi because of the support of local Pashtuns that sometimes hold secret fundraisers for them. Tribes in Kandahar, Afghanistan, also provide Taliban operatives with funding for medical treatment, food, fuel, and other expenses. The Taliban benefit from the tribes’ local culture, which requires “taking care of their own,” as explained by one Asia Times reporter who sat in on a fundraising meeting in Karachi that brought in over $11,600.
The drug trafficking element of the Taliban’s fundraising has been widely covered. The United Nations Drug Office believes the Taliban made up to $300 million from opium sales in 2008. Money is not only made from the sales, but from also charging “protection fees” for those moving the drugs over the Afghanistan borders and for the drug laboratories. Afghan opium cultivation in 2008 fell nearly 20 percent, and production fell six percent. However, according to Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the U.N. Drug Office, this does not reflect progress by those fighting the Taliban. The Taliban has simply produced so much that they have reduced cultivation and are stockpiling current supplies to artificially keep prices higher.
The focus on the Taliban’s organized crime activity shouldn’t distract from the need to stop foreign funding of the group. Supporters in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait provide perhaps as much income for the Taliban as drug sales. The United Arab Emirates is another hot-spot for the Taliban, with the late high-level commander Mullah Dadullah reportedly visiting the country in early 2006.
Most of this foreign funding comes from an unofficial network called hawala, which is often used in countries that don’t have a functioning banking system. An estimated $13-17 billion is transferred through hawala each year. Free of any signed documents, fees, regulation, or recording mechanisms and minimal delays, hawala is a cheap and attractive system for criminals, terrorists, or even average citizens.
If Justice Salam, who served on the Taliban’s Supreme Court, is to be believed, then private citizens in the Arab world and Pakistan are not the only foreign financiers of the Taliban. He claims that the intelligence services of Pakistan, Iran, and, most surprisingly, Russia, are also providing financing as well as weapons. These three countries have also been singled out for assisting the Taliban by no less an authority that the Taliban’s former deputy chief of finance.
Hamid Mir, a Pakistani reporter who has significant contacts in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and is the only journalist to have interviewed Osama Bin Laden after 9/11, told me the same thing in 2006. He accused Iran and Russia of supporting the Taliban, saying that “Russia is covertly supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The spokesman of the Afghan Interior Ministry, Lutaffulah Mashal, told me in September 2005 in Kabul that the Taliban are getting modern Russian-made weapons. He suspected that Russia may be taking revenge on the U.S. for supporting the Afghan Mujahideen against Russia in the 1980s.”
It is more likely that the alleged Russian assistance to the Taliban does not come from direct government orders, but from the activity of the Russian mafia working with corrupt officials. One such Russian criminal is Viktor But, a former high-level Soviet officer “suspected of being the main gunrunner to al-Qaida and the Taliban” who said in 2002 that he was living in Russia without any action being taken by the authorities. He was ultimately arrested on February 6, 2008 in Thailand.
In the battle against the Taliban, the struggle against terrorists and the struggle against organized crime have become intertwined. As the Taliban loses support among the Pakistani population, it will morph into an Islamist mafia, relying upon bribes and force to sustain itself. Defeating the Taliban will not only require a Pakistani military presence to free the locals from fear, but competent law enforcement and an international effort to better regulate the hawala networks that will enable criminals and terrorists to operate for years to come.
31 May 2009
Gibraltar ambush: Spain grabs miles of British waters to carry out 'environmental protection'
Source: Daily Mail
By Simon Mcgee
31st May 2009
They've tried invasion, diplomacy and downright skulduggery to grab a piece of Gibraltar during the past 300 years.
But now the Spanish have played their trump card by laying claim to 20 square miles of sea around the Rock...in the name of the environment.
And it seems to have worked – for the moment, at least. For the EU has granted Spain legal rights over British waters surrounding Gibraltar.
But the move has sparked protests from Britain and the Gibraltar government and led to a confrontation between Royal Navy and Spanish warships.
The grab for the section of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW) came about when Spain convinced the European Commission to include Gibraltar’s waters within a new 69sq mile EU marine conservation area called the Estrecho Oriental, to be maintained by Spain.
However, under EU law, only the member state with sovereignty over the land or sea in question can apply for it to be designated an EU conservation site – meaning the EU has recognised Spain’s possession of British water.
map
The designation requires Spain to undertake environmental protection work within the specified area, handing it an excuse in EU law for its ships to mount incursions into British waters.
Gibraltar has been a key strategic asset since it was ceded by Spain to Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, although the Spanish still claim the territory and insist the Treaty never relinquished its waters.
Spain’s new-found recognition was tested earlier this month when it sent
a corvette into British waters, fuelling diplomatic tensions.
The armed fisheries protection ship Tarifa entered unannounced into waters to the east of Gibraltar to inspect fishing boats, insisting that it was in Spanish waters.
The vessel retreated only after the Royal Navy patrol boat HMS Sabre was sent to intercept it.
The incursion took place just a day after the Gibraltar government made it known that it was considering taking legal action against the designation.
It has lodged a bid in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg to overturn the decision.
Britain’s Europe Minister, Caroline Flint, said: ‘We share the deep concerns that this designation has caused in Gibraltar and we continue to assert our sovereignty over BGTW. ’
A Foreign Office spokeswoman added: ‘The UK is the only member state which is able to make a proposal like this. We do not recognise the validity of their designation.’
Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Peter Caruana told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Spain has usurped British sovereignty of Gibraltar waters. This is clearly wrong and unacceptable.
'Spain argues that Britain has no waters around Gibraltar, so its actions are not an innocent mistake. There is zero basis in international law for its position.’
Labour MP Lindsay Hoyle, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Gibraltar Group, said: ‘This decision must be reversed.
'The Spanish have been trying underhand tricks for 300 years to get a piece of Gibraltar, and unless we do something soon they will have finally succeeded in chipping away at our sovereignty of the Rock.’
Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, standing guard over the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, the Strait of Gibraltar.
The territory is a thin stretch of land covering just 2.6sq miles with a fiercely patriotic population of 28,000.
The European Commission declined to comment. The Spanish government failed to respond to phone calls.
By Simon Mcgee
31st May 2009
They've tried invasion, diplomacy and downright skulduggery to grab a piece of Gibraltar during the past 300 years.
But now the Spanish have played their trump card by laying claim to 20 square miles of sea around the Rock...in the name of the environment.
And it seems to have worked – for the moment, at least. For the EU has granted Spain legal rights over British waters surrounding Gibraltar.
But the move has sparked protests from Britain and the Gibraltar government and led to a confrontation between Royal Navy and Spanish warships.
The grab for the section of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW) came about when Spain convinced the European Commission to include Gibraltar’s waters within a new 69sq mile EU marine conservation area called the Estrecho Oriental, to be maintained by Spain.
However, under EU law, only the member state with sovereignty over the land or sea in question can apply for it to be designated an EU conservation site – meaning the EU has recognised Spain’s possession of British water.
map
The designation requires Spain to undertake environmental protection work within the specified area, handing it an excuse in EU law for its ships to mount incursions into British waters.
Gibraltar has been a key strategic asset since it was ceded by Spain to Britain in perpetuity under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, although the Spanish still claim the territory and insist the Treaty never relinquished its waters.
Spain’s new-found recognition was tested earlier this month when it sent
a corvette into British waters, fuelling diplomatic tensions.
The armed fisheries protection ship Tarifa entered unannounced into waters to the east of Gibraltar to inspect fishing boats, insisting that it was in Spanish waters.
The vessel retreated only after the Royal Navy patrol boat HMS Sabre was sent to intercept it.
The incursion took place just a day after the Gibraltar government made it known that it was considering taking legal action against the designation.
It has lodged a bid in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg to overturn the decision.
Britain’s Europe Minister, Caroline Flint, said: ‘We share the deep concerns that this designation has caused in Gibraltar and we continue to assert our sovereignty over BGTW. ’
A Foreign Office spokeswoman added: ‘The UK is the only member state which is able to make a proposal like this. We do not recognise the validity of their designation.’
Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Peter Caruana told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Spain has usurped British sovereignty of Gibraltar waters. This is clearly wrong and unacceptable.
'Spain argues that Britain has no waters around Gibraltar, so its actions are not an innocent mistake. There is zero basis in international law for its position.’
Labour MP Lindsay Hoyle, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Gibraltar Group, said: ‘This decision must be reversed.
'The Spanish have been trying underhand tricks for 300 years to get a piece of Gibraltar, and unless we do something soon they will have finally succeeded in chipping away at our sovereignty of the Rock.’
Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, standing guard over the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, the Strait of Gibraltar.
The territory is a thin stretch of land covering just 2.6sq miles with a fiercely patriotic population of 28,000.
The European Commission declined to comment. The Spanish government failed to respond to phone calls.
24 May 2009
HOW UNIVERSITIES PERPETUATE SOCIALISM
by Dr Jim
September 11th, 2006
It isn’t much of a surprise that most young people who go to
university are Socialists. Many even identify themselves as full
blown Marxists. Ask the students themselves and they will tell
you it is because the more educated you become the more left
your politics.
Bias notwithstanding, is this really true?
Is it an example of education to believe in a policy that
espouses the collective over the individual and in the process
stifles free enterprise and invention? Is it so educated to
believe in an ideology that was responsible for the murder of 70
million people in Russia, 80 million people in Communist China,
the quarter of the population in Cambodia under Pot, let
alone the millions forced to live in oppressive circumstances
everywhere it has been tried and failed so dismally?
The answer, of course, is an emphatic no!
So why then would otherwise intelligent young people be so
enamoured with Marxism and all its red cousins? In order to
understand the nature of the question we have to look at where
these ideas are mostly thrust forth and that would be in our
universities. The universities which in turn have knock on
effects for our legal systems, our media, our education and our
political spheres. The members never quite willing to jettison
the Marxist baggage in the process.
Whilst in university however, under the guise of receiving a
‘higher education’, the lifestyle of dependency is established.
Classes are organised for studies, lessons are predetermined
and the pre-approved “texts” supply all the pre-approved answers
required to advance. In fact, the student merely turns up,
digests the mantra and then goes home. Questioning your
professors, especially if they are rabid leftists themselves,
results in demerits and ostracism. In many instances, even
accommodation is supplied. In short everything is provided to the
students without effort.
Even university politics plays like a communist state. Any
elected body of students are given some semblance of power but
never actually directing the overall running of the campus. Like
Orwell's 'Big Brother' the real leadership retain a politburo
like control on real proceedings, including, most importantly,
financial control. And while it looks good on a resume to have
been president, vice president or even newspaper editor during
your university career, and a career is what it becomes, it is
essentially meaningless in the real world. Sadly many live with
the delusion that it means something.
On the subject of university newspapers, prima facie it would
appear that the campus inmates have full editorial control.
However, if the students are imbued with the dependency mentality,
and indoctrinated with a socialist mindset, how likely is it
that any publication printed will be anything but leftist in its
perspective? The old maxim, “garbage in, garbage out” springs to
mind – thus as with all socialist ideals, independence of
university newspapers is a castle built on wet sand.
University provides the ultimate testing ground for the tightly
ordered society to be controlled on a wider scale. We can see
then that the slogan “The government will provide” becomes much
more than an easy to remember catchphrase and an actual end
in itself.
Outside of the cocoon, university students cannot understand
that people generally don’t belong to this closely ordered
thought-collective mentality such as they have been subjected to for
20 years or so. Simply they ask, “Why can’t all society be
institutionalised like I was?” This also goes a good way to
explaining when “uni” students tend not to venture out into the
private enterprise but instead move from safe government job to
safe government job like a monkey goes through trees.
It also goes a long way to explain why our politicians, bureaucrats
and other assorted yes-men are so detached from the public
they claim to represent in a public service setting. Like an
aristocracy they simply can't relate to what "the peasants"
go through on a daily basis.
Like the Communist system it closely mimics, university inmates
cannot think without having to run it past their "higher-ups"
first. This is achieved through the oft quoted "peer-review"
procedure. It is believed any thought outside of this tightly
controlled process, where information is effectively vetted, no
matter how logical or effective, has to be disregarded. In a
left dominated campus, it is easy to see how new truths can be
created, while all other reality can be rejected.
Undoubtedly universities have a place in our society. When they
get it right they have the potential to produce doctors,
engineers, scientists and other extremely necessary and
rewarding professionals contributing untold benefits for
society. When they get it wrong they merely become propaganda
centres for "unquestionable" lunatic left ideologies - ideologies
which have a track record of untold misery on humanity.
September 11th, 2006
It isn’t much of a surprise that most young people who go to
university are Socialists. Many even identify themselves as full
blown Marxists. Ask the students themselves and they will tell
you it is because the more educated you become the more left
your politics.
Bias notwithstanding, is this really true?
Is it an example of education to believe in a policy that
espouses the collective over the individual and in the process
stifles free enterprise and invention? Is it so educated to
believe in an ideology that was responsible for the murder of 70
million people in Russia, 80 million people in Communist China,
the quarter of the population in Cambodia under Pot, let
alone the millions forced to live in oppressive circumstances
everywhere it has been tried and failed so dismally?
The answer, of course, is an emphatic no!
So why then would otherwise intelligent young people be so
enamoured with Marxism and all its red cousins? In order to
understand the nature of the question we have to look at where
these ideas are mostly thrust forth and that would be in our
universities. The universities which in turn have knock on
effects for our legal systems, our media, our education and our
political spheres. The members never quite willing to jettison
the Marxist baggage in the process.
Whilst in university however, under the guise of receiving a
‘higher education’, the lifestyle of dependency is established.
Classes are organised for studies, lessons are predetermined
and the pre-approved “texts” supply all the pre-approved answers
required to advance. In fact, the student merely turns up,
digests the mantra and then goes home. Questioning your
professors, especially if they are rabid leftists themselves,
results in demerits and ostracism. In many instances, even
accommodation is supplied. In short everything is provided to the
students without effort.
Even university politics plays like a communist state. Any
elected body of students are given some semblance of power but
never actually directing the overall running of the campus. Like
Orwell's 'Big Brother' the real leadership retain a politburo
like control on real proceedings, including, most importantly,
financial control. And while it looks good on a resume to have
been president, vice president or even newspaper editor during
your university career, and a career is what it becomes, it is
essentially meaningless in the real world. Sadly many live with
the delusion that it means something.
On the subject of university newspapers, prima facie it would
appear that the campus inmates have full editorial control.
However, if the students are imbued with the dependency mentality,
and indoctrinated with a socialist mindset, how likely is it
that any publication printed will be anything but leftist in its
perspective? The old maxim, “garbage in, garbage out” springs to
mind – thus as with all socialist ideals, independence of
university newspapers is a castle built on wet sand.
University provides the ultimate testing ground for the tightly
ordered society to be controlled on a wider scale. We can see
then that the slogan “The government will provide” becomes much
more than an easy to remember catchphrase and an actual end
in itself.
Outside of the cocoon, university students cannot understand
that people generally don’t belong to this closely ordered
thought-collective mentality such as they have been subjected to for
20 years or so. Simply they ask, “Why can’t all society be
institutionalised like I was?” This also goes a good way to
explaining when “uni” students tend not to venture out into the
private enterprise but instead move from safe government job to
safe government job like a monkey goes through trees.
It also goes a long way to explain why our politicians, bureaucrats
and other assorted yes-men are so detached from the public
they claim to represent in a public service setting. Like an
aristocracy they simply can't relate to what "the peasants"
go through on a daily basis.
Like the Communist system it closely mimics, university inmates
cannot think without having to run it past their "higher-ups"
first. This is achieved through the oft quoted "peer-review"
procedure. It is believed any thought outside of this tightly
controlled process, where information is effectively vetted, no
matter how logical or effective, has to be disregarded. In a
left dominated campus, it is easy to see how new truths can be
created, while all other reality can be rejected.
Undoubtedly universities have a place in our society. When they
get it right they have the potential to produce doctors,
engineers, scientists and other extremely necessary and
rewarding professionals contributing untold benefits for
society. When they get it wrong they merely become propaganda
centres for "unquestionable" lunatic left ideologies - ideologies
which have a track record of untold misery on humanity.
Eighteen 'ghost' MEPs to board the EU gravy train next month
- even though they may not start work for FOUR YEARS
Source: Daily Telegraph
By Michael Lea
24th May 2009
Eighteen 'ghost' MEPs will board the EU gravy train after European elections next month even though they may not start work for up to four years.
They will have no powers but will be entitled to £76,000 annual salaries, plus tax-free allowances of £255 for every day of their time in limbo in Brussels.
The group from 12 countries, including one from Britain, can also claim back business class travel and staff and office allowances worth £210,000.
Amid confusion over when and how they will take up their seats, the European Parliament has decided to give the MEPs 'observer' status from next year.
The total cost to taxpayers is likely to be in the region of £24million.
The scandal, which comes about as a result of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, was condemned as a farce tonight.
Under the terms of the Treaty, a rewritten version of the EU Constitution rejected by voters in France and Holland in 2005, the number of MEPs increases from 736 to 754.
Despite the document remaining unsigned, the additional members will be chosen in elections on June 4, including for the UK's West Midlands region.
Ireland, which voted 'no' in 2008, will hold a second referendum in a bid to get the 'right answer' this autumn.
Although it is hoped that the Treaty would then come into force from January 2010 an additional legal protocol, allowing the 'observer' MEPs to take on their full duties, could take at least another two years and possibly four.
MEP Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: 'Welcome to virtual politics, this has to be the political expenses scandal to end all expenses scandals.
'The perfect politician for today's elite, one that takes wages and does no work at all.'
Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, said. 'If the EU is to have democratic legitimacy, we should respect the decision of the Irish.'
Stephen Booth, of anti-Brussels think tank Open Europe, said: 'It is scandalous that the European Parliament could even consider paying MEPs who cannot legally do their job.
'Taxpayers are forking out enough on MEPs as it is – now we find out we’re paying money for nothing.
'These "phantom" MEPs will only be able to take office if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force – electing them, let alone paying for them, when the Treaty is not even in force shows complete disregard for Ireland's upcoming referendum.'
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'People across the EU are suffering in the recession and are looking to their political masters to give them value for money.
'Electing 18 MEPs with no powers to jump aboard the Brussels gravy train is certain to infuriate them.'
Spain has argued that there would be an 'imbalance' between the EU institutions if the 18 MEPs could not take their seats until the end of the new Parliament in 2014 due to Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
It is intending to put forward a motion to enable them to take their seats as soon as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
But any device would have to be endorsed by all 27 member states.
Andrew Duff, LibDem leader in Brussels, warned that the slow process of ratification means the MEPs could remain in limbo for years.
'From January 2010, a legal instrument is going to have to be ratified in each national Parliament. We know that can take a long time,' he said.
But Richard Corbett, the Labour MEP who champions the Lisbon Treaty throughout Europe, defended the arrangement to make the MEPs 'observers'.
'This is straightforward and there is no need to make a fuss,' he said. 'They can do all the work of an MEP except taking part in votes. This is a way of making a smooth transition and has been done before.'
By Michael Lea
24th May 2009
Eighteen 'ghost' MEPs will board the EU gravy train after European elections next month even though they may not start work for up to four years.
They will have no powers but will be entitled to £76,000 annual salaries, plus tax-free allowances of £255 for every day of their time in limbo in Brussels.
The group from 12 countries, including one from Britain, can also claim back business class travel and staff and office allowances worth £210,000.
Amid confusion over when and how they will take up their seats, the European Parliament has decided to give the MEPs 'observer' status from next year.
The total cost to taxpayers is likely to be in the region of £24million.
The scandal, which comes about as a result of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, was condemned as a farce tonight.
Under the terms of the Treaty, a rewritten version of the EU Constitution rejected by voters in France and Holland in 2005, the number of MEPs increases from 736 to 754.
Despite the document remaining unsigned, the additional members will be chosen in elections on June 4, including for the UK's West Midlands region.
Ireland, which voted 'no' in 2008, will hold a second referendum in a bid to get the 'right answer' this autumn.
Although it is hoped that the Treaty would then come into force from January 2010 an additional legal protocol, allowing the 'observer' MEPs to take on their full duties, could take at least another two years and possibly four.
MEP Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: 'Welcome to virtual politics, this has to be the political expenses scandal to end all expenses scandals.
'The perfect politician for today's elite, one that takes wages and does no work at all.'
Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, said. 'If the EU is to have democratic legitimacy, we should respect the decision of the Irish.'
Stephen Booth, of anti-Brussels think tank Open Europe, said: 'It is scandalous that the European Parliament could even consider paying MEPs who cannot legally do their job.
'Taxpayers are forking out enough on MEPs as it is – now we find out we’re paying money for nothing.
'These "phantom" MEPs will only be able to take office if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force – electing them, let alone paying for them, when the Treaty is not even in force shows complete disregard for Ireland's upcoming referendum.'
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'People across the EU are suffering in the recession and are looking to their political masters to give them value for money.
'Electing 18 MEPs with no powers to jump aboard the Brussels gravy train is certain to infuriate them.'
Spain has argued that there would be an 'imbalance' between the EU institutions if the 18 MEPs could not take their seats until the end of the new Parliament in 2014 due to Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
It is intending to put forward a motion to enable them to take their seats as soon as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
But any device would have to be endorsed by all 27 member states.
Andrew Duff, LibDem leader in Brussels, warned that the slow process of ratification means the MEPs could remain in limbo for years.
'From January 2010, a legal instrument is going to have to be ratified in each national Parliament. We know that can take a long time,' he said.
But Richard Corbett, the Labour MEP who champions the Lisbon Treaty throughout Europe, defended the arrangement to make the MEPs 'observers'.
'This is straightforward and there is no need to make a fuss,' he said. 'They can do all the work of an MEP except taking part in votes. This is a way of making a smooth transition and has been done before.'
21 May 2009
Parliament needs radical, not self-serving, change
Source: The Spectator
Fraser Nelson
May 20th, 2009
It is typical of Michael Martin that his laughably short resignation statement contained a fundamental misunderstanding of parliament. ‘This House is at its very best when it is united,’ he said. The precise opposite is true. Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s places are precisely two sword lengths apart because it is intended to be an adversarial system. When the Commons chamber was bombed in 1941, Churchill rejected plans to rebuild it in a more collegiate semi-circular format. ‘We shape our buildings,’ he said, ‘But then our buildings shape us.’
Churchill understood that the slightest change in parliament, from the architecture to the rule book, alters the balance of power. And this is why, today, there is no such thing as an objective answer as to how precisely the Commons should reform. Each leader is careful to talk about the need for radical change — but defines it in a way that suits his party agenda. When one hears demands that an issue should be put ‘above politics’ it is the clearest sign that politicking of the most brutal nature is underway.
It is said of Gordon Brown that he never so much as chooses his tie without thinking how it may in some way destabilise the Tories. This desire has been much in evidence in recent days. Brown’s narrative is that the Commons has been a ‘gentleman’s club’ — and we all know which party likes such clubs. His proposal for claims on mortgage interest to be capped at £1,250 is being briefed by Number 10 as a means of countering the greed of moat-owning Tories.
For the Liberal Democrats, radical change means proportional representation. This would elevate them from the ‘none of the above’ party to kingmakers. When Labour ministers like Douglas Alexander and Alan Johnson float PR it is on the calculation that a Lib-Lab ‘progressive’ axis will yield a surer return to power. David Cameron’s calls for an early election are delivered with the passion of a man with a 20-point opinion poll lead.
But to ask why Westminster was held in contempt long before the Daily Telegraph exposed all the champagne flutes and Jacuzzis takes us on to harder terrain. MPs have, for example, voted their powers away to Brussels and the Celtic fringe, so it should be no surprise that the public has lost respect for them. Elections are focused on a handful of swing voters in swing seats. So it should be no surprise if so many voters have no interest in parties not interested in them.
Radical reform would mean, for example, repatriating control of England’s legal system with a Bill of Rights declared senior to anything in Strasbourg. It could mean mandatory reselection after eight years to stop idle MPs taking safe seats for granted. Constituents could be given power to recall an MP, especially one who has betrayed them by defecting to a new party. Several such devices could be deployed to make MPs rest far less easily in their beds at night, but no Speaker is likely to be elected on a manifesto of introducing them.
There is talk about how the coming election for Speaker will be an open contest about a new system, not just a new person. A fine aim, but I realised how futile such hope is when I was stopped by a policeman when returning from Members’ Lobby to my desk in the Commons press gallery on Tuesday. The officer said he had just been instructed not to allow journalists through certain corridors — presumably so reporters could not see which MPs are lobbying whom. MPs who have spent years perfecting the art of House of Cards-style chicanery will be loath to let such skills go to waste now.
Reform of the House of Commons may take the traditional format: a decoy message for the public with the real agenda worked out in private. The proposal to have MPs’ pay set independently is a classic example. It is hard for MPs to vote themselves generous pay rises, which is why they started to believe that it was OK to fiddle their expenses to make up the difference. Far better for MPs to have pay rises foisted on them. And the Prime Minister, after all, is a master of setting up supposedly independent groups that do exactly what he wants, from the Monetary Policy Committee to the health spending reviews.
Advisory boards, citizen juries, listening exercises — there are 101 ways to give the appearance of reform while doing nothing. This, after all, is what politics is all about. The MPs who want radical reform are shouting it from the rooftops, but are outnumbered by those who whisper that the press is exaggerating public outrage. As one MP told me, ‘We are seeing the mob, and it is not pleasant. But the mob moves on.’
But the problems of Britain’s electoral system, it seems, will not move on. Take Glasgow North East, Michael Martin’s seat, where there will be a by-election this summer. It is the perfect example of a modern-day rotten borough; it has a majority so large that no party thinks it worth exploring. A scandalous 30 per cent of the constituency are on out-of-work benefits. Male life expectancy in Hamiltonhill, one of its poorer areas, is 60.2 years — worse than Bangladesh, Iraq or Uzbekistan.
Yet even if the voters of Glasgow North East wanted, they could not have voted Tory or Liberal Democrat at the last election because of the convention that the main parties do not oppose the Speaker. So its constituents have been disenfranchised by the same parties who will soon descend on the seat professing a sudden and profound interest in them. Several primary schools are being closed in the constituency at present, a fate that tends not to befall marginal seats. Glasgow North East is what happens when voters are taken for granted.
These parts of Britain have become invisible to our political system, their people too poor to stand a chance of crossing the £199-a-week threshold ministers use to decree that someone has been ‘lifted out of poverty’. Little wonder that so many do respond when a fringe party, [like the British National Party**], comes to the tower block and ask them what they think. With such despair about Westminster and so few proposals for reform, [they**] could hardly ask for a fairer wind.
There is, though, one potential candidate for Speaker who has devoted his political life to such people; their cares have been his concerns. Frank Field has accomplished so much as a backbencher that he may be reluctant to occupy the Speaker’s chair. But real reform can only be brought to Westminster by someone with no interest in its cliques and cabals and someone who has always thought outside its narrow intellectual parameters. If Westminster wants real change, not synthetic change, Field must be dragged to the chair.
[** ed. slander edited by blog author]
Fraser Nelson
May 20th, 2009
It is typical of Michael Martin that his laughably short resignation statement contained a fundamental misunderstanding of parliament. ‘This House is at its very best when it is united,’ he said. The precise opposite is true. Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s places are precisely two sword lengths apart because it is intended to be an adversarial system. When the Commons chamber was bombed in 1941, Churchill rejected plans to rebuild it in a more collegiate semi-circular format. ‘We shape our buildings,’ he said, ‘But then our buildings shape us.’
Churchill understood that the slightest change in parliament, from the architecture to the rule book, alters the balance of power. And this is why, today, there is no such thing as an objective answer as to how precisely the Commons should reform. Each leader is careful to talk about the need for radical change — but defines it in a way that suits his party agenda. When one hears demands that an issue should be put ‘above politics’ it is the clearest sign that politicking of the most brutal nature is underway.
It is said of Gordon Brown that he never so much as chooses his tie without thinking how it may in some way destabilise the Tories. This desire has been much in evidence in recent days. Brown’s narrative is that the Commons has been a ‘gentleman’s club’ — and we all know which party likes such clubs. His proposal for claims on mortgage interest to be capped at £1,250 is being briefed by Number 10 as a means of countering the greed of moat-owning Tories.
For the Liberal Democrats, radical change means proportional representation. This would elevate them from the ‘none of the above’ party to kingmakers. When Labour ministers like Douglas Alexander and Alan Johnson float PR it is on the calculation that a Lib-Lab ‘progressive’ axis will yield a surer return to power. David Cameron’s calls for an early election are delivered with the passion of a man with a 20-point opinion poll lead.
But to ask why Westminster was held in contempt long before the Daily Telegraph exposed all the champagne flutes and Jacuzzis takes us on to harder terrain. MPs have, for example, voted their powers away to Brussels and the Celtic fringe, so it should be no surprise that the public has lost respect for them. Elections are focused on a handful of swing voters in swing seats. So it should be no surprise if so many voters have no interest in parties not interested in them.
Radical reform would mean, for example, repatriating control of England’s legal system with a Bill of Rights declared senior to anything in Strasbourg. It could mean mandatory reselection after eight years to stop idle MPs taking safe seats for granted. Constituents could be given power to recall an MP, especially one who has betrayed them by defecting to a new party. Several such devices could be deployed to make MPs rest far less easily in their beds at night, but no Speaker is likely to be elected on a manifesto of introducing them.
There is talk about how the coming election for Speaker will be an open contest about a new system, not just a new person. A fine aim, but I realised how futile such hope is when I was stopped by a policeman when returning from Members’ Lobby to my desk in the Commons press gallery on Tuesday. The officer said he had just been instructed not to allow journalists through certain corridors — presumably so reporters could not see which MPs are lobbying whom. MPs who have spent years perfecting the art of House of Cards-style chicanery will be loath to let such skills go to waste now.
Reform of the House of Commons may take the traditional format: a decoy message for the public with the real agenda worked out in private. The proposal to have MPs’ pay set independently is a classic example. It is hard for MPs to vote themselves generous pay rises, which is why they started to believe that it was OK to fiddle their expenses to make up the difference. Far better for MPs to have pay rises foisted on them. And the Prime Minister, after all, is a master of setting up supposedly independent groups that do exactly what he wants, from the Monetary Policy Committee to the health spending reviews.
Advisory boards, citizen juries, listening exercises — there are 101 ways to give the appearance of reform while doing nothing. This, after all, is what politics is all about. The MPs who want radical reform are shouting it from the rooftops, but are outnumbered by those who whisper that the press is exaggerating public outrage. As one MP told me, ‘We are seeing the mob, and it is not pleasant. But the mob moves on.’
But the problems of Britain’s electoral system, it seems, will not move on. Take Glasgow North East, Michael Martin’s seat, where there will be a by-election this summer. It is the perfect example of a modern-day rotten borough; it has a majority so large that no party thinks it worth exploring. A scandalous 30 per cent of the constituency are on out-of-work benefits. Male life expectancy in Hamiltonhill, one of its poorer areas, is 60.2 years — worse than Bangladesh, Iraq or Uzbekistan.
Yet even if the voters of Glasgow North East wanted, they could not have voted Tory or Liberal Democrat at the last election because of the convention that the main parties do not oppose the Speaker. So its constituents have been disenfranchised by the same parties who will soon descend on the seat professing a sudden and profound interest in them. Several primary schools are being closed in the constituency at present, a fate that tends not to befall marginal seats. Glasgow North East is what happens when voters are taken for granted.
These parts of Britain have become invisible to our political system, their people too poor to stand a chance of crossing the £199-a-week threshold ministers use to decree that someone has been ‘lifted out of poverty’. Little wonder that so many do respond when a fringe party, [like the British National Party**], comes to the tower block and ask them what they think. With such despair about Westminster and so few proposals for reform, [they**] could hardly ask for a fairer wind.
There is, though, one potential candidate for Speaker who has devoted his political life to such people; their cares have been his concerns. Frank Field has accomplished so much as a backbencher that he may be reluctant to occupy the Speaker’s chair. But real reform can only be brought to Westminster by someone with no interest in its cliques and cabals and someone who has always thought outside its narrow intellectual parameters. If Westminster wants real change, not synthetic change, Field must be dragged to the chair.
[** ed. slander edited by blog author]
14 May 2009
Asian Bug Threatens British Plant
[ed. Oh the Irony!]
Source: Daily Mail
By David Derbyshire
14th May 2009
Invading Asian bug could wipe out swathes of Britain's wisteria plants.
Its stunning displays of lavender and violet flowers are a welcome sign of the arrival of summer.
But Britain’s wisteria plants are under threat from a bug that is spreading across the country.
The wisteria scale pest was first found in the UK eight years ago, having been introduced on imported plants.
Under threat: The wisteria scale bug could destroy the beautiful crops found on cottages and historic properties across the country like the 100-year-old variety found on this home in Dorset
It was discovered in the South-East, but experts warn it is spreading into the North and West.
The shell-like wisteria scale can be up to 1cm long – bigger than other species of scale – with a distinctive brown lumpy body.
They damage the plants by sucking sap from leaves and stems. The bugs cannot fly but spread from plant to plant by becoming attached to birds’ feet and feathers.
The Royal Horticultural Society fears the bug has the potential to wipe out swathes of wisteria and is warning gardeners to watch out for infestations.
Andrew Salisbury, of the RHS, said: ‘Our records show it is spreading slowly but like all things it could suddenly mushroom.
'Heady infestations could cause die-back in wisteria so gardeners should definitely keep an eye out for it.’
Changes in weather and the increased global movement of plants are thought to be to blame for the influx of wisteria scale and other pests, such as the scarlet lily beetle, berberis sawfly and rosemary beetle.
Killer bug: The wisteria scale insect attaches itself to the plant and grows a grey sack full of thousands of eggs before they hatch and crawl up the plant to feed
This particular species of scale was originally found in Asia where it attacks fruit trees.
In Britain, however, it appears to be mostly confined to wisteria, which flower for around four weeks in May and June.
Andy Strachan, of Garden Organic, said: ‘They are like little shells and when they breed they erupt and turn fluffy and let out tens of thousands of little scales which then walk about the plant.
‘They are transferred from one plant to another by birds.
‘When the new nymphs settle on the next plant they pierce the stem and suck out the sap. It’s awful. Wisteria are stunning plants and this can really ruin them.’
So far the scale has been found only in London and the South-East on isolated plants but there is evidence that it is spreading – worrying news for many National Trust and other historic properties famed for their beautiful wisteria.
Mr Salisbury added: ‘We have already had reports of sightings this year. The scale does appear to be established and spreading slowly.
‘If anyone spots it they should get it diagnosed properly.’
Source: Daily Mail
By David Derbyshire
14th May 2009
Invading Asian bug could wipe out swathes of Britain's wisteria plants.
Its stunning displays of lavender and violet flowers are a welcome sign of the arrival of summer.
But Britain’s wisteria plants are under threat from a bug that is spreading across the country.
The wisteria scale pest was first found in the UK eight years ago, having been introduced on imported plants.
Under threat: The wisteria scale bug could destroy the beautiful crops found on cottages and historic properties across the country like the 100-year-old variety found on this home in Dorset
It was discovered in the South-East, but experts warn it is spreading into the North and West.
The shell-like wisteria scale can be up to 1cm long – bigger than other species of scale – with a distinctive brown lumpy body.
They damage the plants by sucking sap from leaves and stems. The bugs cannot fly but spread from plant to plant by becoming attached to birds’ feet and feathers.
The Royal Horticultural Society fears the bug has the potential to wipe out swathes of wisteria and is warning gardeners to watch out for infestations.
Andrew Salisbury, of the RHS, said: ‘Our records show it is spreading slowly but like all things it could suddenly mushroom.
'Heady infestations could cause die-back in wisteria so gardeners should definitely keep an eye out for it.’
Changes in weather and the increased global movement of plants are thought to be to blame for the influx of wisteria scale and other pests, such as the scarlet lily beetle, berberis sawfly and rosemary beetle.
Killer bug: The wisteria scale insect attaches itself to the plant and grows a grey sack full of thousands of eggs before they hatch and crawl up the plant to feed
This particular species of scale was originally found in Asia where it attacks fruit trees.
In Britain, however, it appears to be mostly confined to wisteria, which flower for around four weeks in May and June.
Andy Strachan, of Garden Organic, said: ‘They are like little shells and when they breed they erupt and turn fluffy and let out tens of thousands of little scales which then walk about the plant.
‘They are transferred from one plant to another by birds.
‘When the new nymphs settle on the next plant they pierce the stem and suck out the sap. It’s awful. Wisteria are stunning plants and this can really ruin them.’
So far the scale has been found only in London and the South-East on isolated plants but there is evidence that it is spreading – worrying news for many National Trust and other historic properties famed for their beautiful wisteria.
Mr Salisbury added: ‘We have already had reports of sightings this year. The scale does appear to be established and spreading slowly.
‘If anyone spots it they should get it diagnosed properly.’
13 May 2009
Canterbury 'not gay enough'
Source: Daily Telegraph
By Aislinn Simpson
13 May 2009
The ancient city of Canterbury has found itself the subject of a complaint from homosexual rights activists for not having a gay bar.
Although it welcomes millions of tourists each year from across the globe, the cathedral city - famed for its association with 14th century Canterbury Tales author Geoffrey Chaucer - has also attracted ire for not having a homosexuals' community centre.
The complaint was lodged with the Local Government Ombudsman by the Pride in Canterbury pressure group which also complained about the "stereotypical" depiction of a gay character in a play staged at the city's Marlowe theatre.
Pride said the Conservative-run city council was not doing its best to attract "pink tourism" – drawing visitors who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
But the council insisted it had helped the gay community by offering money, help and use of its facilities.
Chief executive Colin Carmichael said it had provided Pride in Canterbury with more than £4,000 funding since 2005 to help identify the needs of the gay community and promote their concerns.
"The council strongly refutes any suggestion by Pride in Canterbury that we do not want to engage with the gay community and we are very disappointed that they have referred this to the ombudsman," he said.
"Last year we held a gay open day at the council offices which was widely advertised – including in the gay press – well attended by more than 40 people and received very good feedback from those present."
But Pride's Andrew Bretell insisted it had been left with no choice but to make a complaint because letters to the council had failed to get the required response.
Mr Bretell said: "They're more interested in ticking their equality boxes and engaging in back and forth 'who said what' games than they are in dealing with the real issues. We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city."
News of the investigation has surprised some locals. Canterbury University student Chloe Breton, 21, added: "It sounds ridiculous to me, some of my male friends are gay and they've definitely got no problem with Canterbury. I really don't think this is the best way to promote the place. It just makes us sound unfriendly and not tolerant – when actually the opposite is true."
The ombudsman is due to rule on the complaint on May 20.
By Aislinn Simpson
13 May 2009
The ancient city of Canterbury has found itself the subject of a complaint from homosexual rights activists for not having a gay bar.
Although it welcomes millions of tourists each year from across the globe, the cathedral city - famed for its association with 14th century Canterbury Tales author Geoffrey Chaucer - has also attracted ire for not having a homosexuals' community centre.
The complaint was lodged with the Local Government Ombudsman by the Pride in Canterbury pressure group which also complained about the "stereotypical" depiction of a gay character in a play staged at the city's Marlowe theatre.
Pride said the Conservative-run city council was not doing its best to attract "pink tourism" – drawing visitors who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
But the council insisted it had helped the gay community by offering money, help and use of its facilities.
Chief executive Colin Carmichael said it had provided Pride in Canterbury with more than £4,000 funding since 2005 to help identify the needs of the gay community and promote their concerns.
"The council strongly refutes any suggestion by Pride in Canterbury that we do not want to engage with the gay community and we are very disappointed that they have referred this to the ombudsman," he said.
"Last year we held a gay open day at the council offices which was widely advertised – including in the gay press – well attended by more than 40 people and received very good feedback from those present."
But Pride's Andrew Bretell insisted it had been left with no choice but to make a complaint because letters to the council had failed to get the required response.
Mr Bretell said: "They're more interested in ticking their equality boxes and engaging in back and forth 'who said what' games than they are in dealing with the real issues. We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city."
News of the investigation has surprised some locals. Canterbury University student Chloe Breton, 21, added: "It sounds ridiculous to me, some of my male friends are gay and they've definitely got no problem with Canterbury. I really don't think this is the best way to promote the place. It just makes us sound unfriendly and not tolerant – when actually the opposite is true."
The ombudsman is due to rule on the complaint on May 20.
12 May 2009
Socialism and Secularism Suck Vitality Out of Society
"A Communist is someone who has read Marx, a anti communist is someone who has UNDERSTOOD Marx..."
FrontPageMagazine.com
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
by Dennis Prager
Outside of politics, sports, and popular entertainment, how many living Germans, or French, or Austrians, or even Brits can you name?
Even well-informed people who love art and literature and who follow developments in science and medicine would be hard pressed to come up with many, more often any, names. In terms of greatness in literature, art, music, the sciences, philosophy, and medical breakthroughs, Europe has virtually fallen off the radar screen.
This is particularly meaningful given how different the answer would have been had you asked anyone the same question between just 80 and 120 years ago -- and certainly before that. A plethora of world-renowned names would have flowed.
Obvious examples would include (in alphabetical order): Brecht, Buber, Cezanne, Chekhov, Curie, Debussy, Eiffel, Einstein, Freud, Hesse, Kafka, Mahler, Mann, Marconi, Pasteur, Porsche, Proust, Somerset Maugham, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tolstoy, Zeppelin, Zola.
Not to mention the European immortals who lived within the century before them: Mozart, Beethoven, Dostoevsky, Darwin, Kierkegaard, Manet, Monet, Hugo and Van Gogh, to name only a few.
What has happened?
What has happened is that Europe, with a few exceptions, has lost its creativity, intellectual excitement, industrial innovation, and risk taking. Europe's creative energy has been sapped. There are many lovely Europeans; but there aren't many creative, dynamic, or entrepreneurial ones.
The issues that preoccupy most Europeans are overwhelmingly material ones: How many hours per week will I have to work? How much annual vacation time will I have? How many social benefits can I preserve (or increase)? How can my country avoid fighting against anyone or for anyone?
Why has this happened?
There are two reasons: secularism and socialism (aka the welfare state).
Either one alone sucks much of the life out of society. Together they are likely to be lethal.
Even if one holds that religion is false, only a dogmatic and irrational secularist can deny that it was religion in the Western world that provided the impetus or backdrop for nearly all the uniquely great art, literature, economic and even scientific advances of the West. Even the irreligious were forced to deal with religious themes -- if only in expressing rebellion against them.
Religion in the West raised all the great questions of life: Why are we here? Is there purpose to existence? Were we deliberately made? Is there something after death? Are morals objective or only a matter of personal preference? Do rights come from the state or from the Creator?
And religion gave positive responses: We are here because a benevolent God made us. There is, therefore, ultimate purpose to life. Good and evil are real. Death is not the end. Human rights are inherent since they come from God. And so on.
Secularism drains all this out of life. No one made us. Death is the end. We are no more significant than any other creatures. We are all the results of mere coincidence. Make up your own meaning (existentialism) because life has none. Good and evil are merely euphemisms for "I like" and "I dislike."
Thus, when religion dies in a country, creativity wanes. For example, while Christian Russia was backward in many ways, it still gave the world Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy, and Tchaikovsky. Once Christianity was suppressed, if not killed, in Russia, that country became a cultural wasteland (with a few exceptions like Shostakovich and Solzhenitsyn, the latter a devout Christian). It is true that this was largely the result of Lenin, Stalin and Communism; but even where Communism did not take over, the decline of religion in Europe meant a decline in human creativity -- except for nihilistic and/or absurd isms, which have greatly increased. As G. K. Chesterton noted at the end of the 19th century, when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. One not only thinks of the violent isms: Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Fascism, Maoism, and Nazism, but of all the non-violent isms that have become substitute religions - e.g., feminism, environmentalism, and socialism.
The state sucks out creativity and dynamism just as much as secularism does. Why do anything for yourself when the state will do it for you? Why take care of others when the state will do it for you? Why have ambition when the state is there to ensure that few or no individuals are rewarded more than others?
America has been the center of energy and creativity in almost every area of life because it has remained far more religious than any other industrialized Western democracy and because it has rejected the welfare state social model.
Which is why so many are so worried about President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party's desire to transform -- in their apt wording -- America into a secular welfare state. The greatest engine of moral, religious, economic, scientific, and industrial dynamism is being starved of its fuel. The bigger the state, the smaller its people.
FrontPageMagazine.com
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
by Dennis Prager
Outside of politics, sports, and popular entertainment, how many living Germans, or French, or Austrians, or even Brits can you name?
Even well-informed people who love art and literature and who follow developments in science and medicine would be hard pressed to come up with many, more often any, names. In terms of greatness in literature, art, music, the sciences, philosophy, and medical breakthroughs, Europe has virtually fallen off the radar screen.
This is particularly meaningful given how different the answer would have been had you asked anyone the same question between just 80 and 120 years ago -- and certainly before that. A plethora of world-renowned names would have flowed.
Obvious examples would include (in alphabetical order): Brecht, Buber, Cezanne, Chekhov, Curie, Debussy, Eiffel, Einstein, Freud, Hesse, Kafka, Mahler, Mann, Marconi, Pasteur, Porsche, Proust, Somerset Maugham, Strauss, Stravinsky, Tolstoy, Zeppelin, Zola.
Not to mention the European immortals who lived within the century before them: Mozart, Beethoven, Dostoevsky, Darwin, Kierkegaard, Manet, Monet, Hugo and Van Gogh, to name only a few.
What has happened?
What has happened is that Europe, with a few exceptions, has lost its creativity, intellectual excitement, industrial innovation, and risk taking. Europe's creative energy has been sapped. There are many lovely Europeans; but there aren't many creative, dynamic, or entrepreneurial ones.
The issues that preoccupy most Europeans are overwhelmingly material ones: How many hours per week will I have to work? How much annual vacation time will I have? How many social benefits can I preserve (or increase)? How can my country avoid fighting against anyone or for anyone?
Why has this happened?
There are two reasons: secularism and socialism (aka the welfare state).
Either one alone sucks much of the life out of society. Together they are likely to be lethal.
Even if one holds that religion is false, only a dogmatic and irrational secularist can deny that it was religion in the Western world that provided the impetus or backdrop for nearly all the uniquely great art, literature, economic and even scientific advances of the West. Even the irreligious were forced to deal with religious themes -- if only in expressing rebellion against them.
Religion in the West raised all the great questions of life: Why are we here? Is there purpose to existence? Were we deliberately made? Is there something after death? Are morals objective or only a matter of personal preference? Do rights come from the state or from the Creator?
And religion gave positive responses: We are here because a benevolent God made us. There is, therefore, ultimate purpose to life. Good and evil are real. Death is not the end. Human rights are inherent since they come from God. And so on.
Secularism drains all this out of life. No one made us. Death is the end. We are no more significant than any other creatures. We are all the results of mere coincidence. Make up your own meaning (existentialism) because life has none. Good and evil are merely euphemisms for "I like" and "I dislike."
Thus, when religion dies in a country, creativity wanes. For example, while Christian Russia was backward in many ways, it still gave the world Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy, and Tchaikovsky. Once Christianity was suppressed, if not killed, in Russia, that country became a cultural wasteland (with a few exceptions like Shostakovich and Solzhenitsyn, the latter a devout Christian). It is true that this was largely the result of Lenin, Stalin and Communism; but even where Communism did not take over, the decline of religion in Europe meant a decline in human creativity -- except for nihilistic and/or absurd isms, which have greatly increased. As G. K. Chesterton noted at the end of the 19th century, when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. One not only thinks of the violent isms: Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Fascism, Maoism, and Nazism, but of all the non-violent isms that have become substitute religions - e.g., feminism, environmentalism, and socialism.
The state sucks out creativity and dynamism just as much as secularism does. Why do anything for yourself when the state will do it for you? Why take care of others when the state will do it for you? Why have ambition when the state is there to ensure that few or no individuals are rewarded more than others?
America has been the center of energy and creativity in almost every area of life because it has remained far more religious than any other industrialized Western democracy and because it has rejected the welfare state social model.
Which is why so many are so worried about President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party's desire to transform -- in their apt wording -- America into a secular welfare state. The greatest engine of moral, religious, economic, scientific, and industrial dynamism is being starved of its fuel. The bigger the state, the smaller its people.
BBC appoints Muslim to top religious post in controversial first
By Steve Doughty
12th May 2009
Aaqil Ahmed has been appointed the Head of Religion and Ethics
The BBC yesterday appointed a Muslim as its head of religious programming in a radical departure from broadcasting tradition.
The post - considered one of the most influential religious roles in the country - has gone to Aaqil Ahmed, who has been working as an executive at Channel 4.
The appointment will cause dismay among the Christian churches.
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams raised concerns over the prospect of a Muslim head of religious broadcasting during a meeting with the corporation's director general Mark Thompson in March.
It comes at a time of deepening worries among Christian leaders that their faith is being sidelined and downgraded by authorities.
Both Dr Williams and Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu have made repeated public complaints over the indifference and occasional hostility to Christianity shown in Whitehall and from other authorities.
Last year the BBC gave the job of producing its most popular and longrunning religious programme, Songs of Praise, to a Sikh, Tommy Nagra.
The Church of England points out that 70 per cent of the population of Britain professes to be Christian, but only 3 per cent are Muslims.
An official spokesman for the CofE said: 'We will judge the new man by his output rather than his label.'
Christina Rees, a member of the Church's 'Cabinet', the Archbishops' Council, said: 'Aaqil Ahmed is a respected professional who has an established record of producing programmes on religion and ethics.
'It is important that the Christian faith continues to receive coverage that accurately reflects its significance in the lives of most people who live in Britain, the overwhelming majority of whom regard themselves as Christian.'
The choice of Mr Ahmed was made by George Entwistle, who is in charge of factual programming.
A BBC spokesman declined to say whether Mr Thompson - a practising Roman Catholic - was consulted on the appointment.
But one corporation insider suggested the BBC would have been in breach of employment law if it had failed to give the job to Mr Ahmed.
He was the best-qualified for the post, they said, and a decision to turn him down would have amounted to discrimination.
Mr Ahmed is currently Channel 4's senior executive for religious programmes. He has commissioned series on the history of Christianity and the Koran.
His critics accuse him of dumbing down religion, for example in one programme by presenting an assessment of the state of Christianity by Cherie Blair.
Mr Ahmed is a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, a body that has championed the ideology of multiculturalism.
He has also taken part in campaigns for a greater Muslim presence in the media.
In the past the post of head of religion at the BBC has been considered a job for a senior and respected cleric or lay churchgoer.
The Church of England's place as the established Church has usually been influential in the choice of postholders.
There were deep reservations among church leaders eight years ago when for the first time the corporation appointed an atheist to the role.
Mr Ahmed's appointment follows a re- organisation of the BBC religious broadcasting department and his title will be Head of Religion and Ethics and Commissioning Editor for Religion TV.
The former head of religious programmes, Methodist preacher Michael Wakelin, failed to land the new post.
Church leaders have become increasing disillusioned with the BBC in recent years. There have been a number of complaints that the corporation has shifted religious broadcasting out of prime time and cut down on the amount of time it gets.
The BBC's TV religious programming is much reduced from the days when there were only terrestrial channels, which were required to set aside an hour on Sunday evening as a 'God Slot'.
The remaining religious flagship is Songs of Praise, which has been running since 1961 and which can still command audiences of four million. Last Sunday it ran at close to peak time, at 5.55pm.
Otherwise the only Sunday TV religious programme is The Big Question, broadcast at 10am and intended to represent different faiths and beliefs.
Last Sunday, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 offered no religious programmes. BBC3, however, did broadcast Kirsten's Topless Ambition, about a TV presenter considering going topless for a photo shoot, and two episodes of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
The BBC has recently announced a six-part documentary on the history of Christianity, to be presented by the highly-respected historian Diarmaid McCulloch.
* The BBC has made a second senior religious appointment, making Christine Morgan, a longstanding producer who has been responsible for Radio 4's Thought for the Day, Head of Religion Radio.
12th May 2009
Aaqil Ahmed has been appointed the Head of Religion and Ethics
The BBC yesterday appointed a Muslim as its head of religious programming in a radical departure from broadcasting tradition.
The post - considered one of the most influential religious roles in the country - has gone to Aaqil Ahmed, who has been working as an executive at Channel 4.
The appointment will cause dismay among the Christian churches.
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams raised concerns over the prospect of a Muslim head of religious broadcasting during a meeting with the corporation's director general Mark Thompson in March.
It comes at a time of deepening worries among Christian leaders that their faith is being sidelined and downgraded by authorities.
Both Dr Williams and Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu have made repeated public complaints over the indifference and occasional hostility to Christianity shown in Whitehall and from other authorities.
Last year the BBC gave the job of producing its most popular and longrunning religious programme, Songs of Praise, to a Sikh, Tommy Nagra.
The Church of England points out that 70 per cent of the population of Britain professes to be Christian, but only 3 per cent are Muslims.
An official spokesman for the CofE said: 'We will judge the new man by his output rather than his label.'
Christina Rees, a member of the Church's 'Cabinet', the Archbishops' Council, said: 'Aaqil Ahmed is a respected professional who has an established record of producing programmes on religion and ethics.
'It is important that the Christian faith continues to receive coverage that accurately reflects its significance in the lives of most people who live in Britain, the overwhelming majority of whom regard themselves as Christian.'
The choice of Mr Ahmed was made by George Entwistle, who is in charge of factual programming.
A BBC spokesman declined to say whether Mr Thompson - a practising Roman Catholic - was consulted on the appointment.
But one corporation insider suggested the BBC would have been in breach of employment law if it had failed to give the job to Mr Ahmed.
He was the best-qualified for the post, they said, and a decision to turn him down would have amounted to discrimination.
Mr Ahmed is currently Channel 4's senior executive for religious programmes. He has commissioned series on the history of Christianity and the Koran.
His critics accuse him of dumbing down religion, for example in one programme by presenting an assessment of the state of Christianity by Cherie Blair.
Mr Ahmed is a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, a body that has championed the ideology of multiculturalism.
He has also taken part in campaigns for a greater Muslim presence in the media.
In the past the post of head of religion at the BBC has been considered a job for a senior and respected cleric or lay churchgoer.
The Church of England's place as the established Church has usually been influential in the choice of postholders.
There were deep reservations among church leaders eight years ago when for the first time the corporation appointed an atheist to the role.
Mr Ahmed's appointment follows a re- organisation of the BBC religious broadcasting department and his title will be Head of Religion and Ethics and Commissioning Editor for Religion TV.
The former head of religious programmes, Methodist preacher Michael Wakelin, failed to land the new post.
Church leaders have become increasing disillusioned with the BBC in recent years. There have been a number of complaints that the corporation has shifted religious broadcasting out of prime time and cut down on the amount of time it gets.
The BBC's TV religious programming is much reduced from the days when there were only terrestrial channels, which were required to set aside an hour on Sunday evening as a 'God Slot'.
The remaining religious flagship is Songs of Praise, which has been running since 1961 and which can still command audiences of four million. Last Sunday it ran at close to peak time, at 5.55pm.
Otherwise the only Sunday TV religious programme is The Big Question, broadcast at 10am and intended to represent different faiths and beliefs.
Last Sunday, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 offered no religious programmes. BBC3, however, did broadcast Kirsten's Topless Ambition, about a TV presenter considering going topless for a photo shoot, and two episodes of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
The BBC has recently announced a six-part documentary on the history of Christianity, to be presented by the highly-respected historian Diarmaid McCulloch.
* The BBC has made a second senior religious appointment, making Christine Morgan, a longstanding producer who has been responsible for Radio 4's Thought for the Day, Head of Religion Radio.
11 May 2009
U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Impostor"
"You can fool some of the people, all the time and all the people some of the time; but you can't fool all the people all of the time..."
By Caitlin Millat
http://www.nbcnewyork.com
11th May, 2009
A United States soldier on active duty in Iraq called President Barack Obama an "impostor" Monday, saying he would not comply with the president's military commands until he saw irrefutable evidence Obama was born on American soil.
Take a look at the best photos of President Obama and his family captured during the first few months in office.
"As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the Office of President of the United States," Lt. Scott Easterling wrote in a letter to attorney Orly Taitz.
Until the president - or "Mr." Obama, as Easterling writes - releases the original 'vault copy' to the public, Easterling said he would refuse to acknowledge Obama's military orders.
"I will consider him neither my Commander-in-Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office - an imposter," he said.
Easterling said that Obama has "absolutely refused" to provide proof that he was indeed born in Honolulu - and not Kenya, as some detractors claim. Obama "has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens" to prove his eligibility for office,
Easterling wrote.
The lieutenant is currently in the middle of a 15-month tour of duty in Balad, Iraq. He joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor with firm KBR.
Taitz is the legal counsel behind the "Defend Our Freedoms" campaign pushing for action to unseal Barack Obama's birth records. She worked with ex-Obama opponent Alan Keyes in 2008 as he filed suit against the state of California, attempting to prevent the state from granting electoral votes to the then president-elect until his birth records were verified.
Alabama Senator Richard Shelby questioned Obama's citizenship last week as he spoke to constituents, saying he had never seen a copy of Obama's birth certificate. Several other appeals are pending or have since been denied in New Jersey, Chicago and Hawaii, among other locations, to verify Obama's citizenship, World Net Daily reports.
By Caitlin Millat
http://www.nbcnewyork.com
11th May, 2009
A United States soldier on active duty in Iraq called President Barack Obama an "impostor" Monday, saying he would not comply with the president's military commands until he saw irrefutable evidence Obama was born on American soil.
Take a look at the best photos of President Obama and his family captured during the first few months in office.
"As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the Office of President of the United States," Lt. Scott Easterling wrote in a letter to attorney Orly Taitz.
Until the president - or "Mr." Obama, as Easterling writes - releases the original 'vault copy' to the public, Easterling said he would refuse to acknowledge Obama's military orders.
"I will consider him neither my Commander-in-Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office - an imposter," he said.
Easterling said that Obama has "absolutely refused" to provide proof that he was indeed born in Honolulu - and not Kenya, as some detractors claim. Obama "has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens" to prove his eligibility for office,
Easterling wrote.
The lieutenant is currently in the middle of a 15-month tour of duty in Balad, Iraq. He joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor with firm KBR.
Taitz is the legal counsel behind the "Defend Our Freedoms" campaign pushing for action to unseal Barack Obama's birth records. She worked with ex-Obama opponent Alan Keyes in 2008 as he filed suit against the state of California, attempting to prevent the state from granting electoral votes to the then president-elect until his birth records were verified.
Alabama Senator Richard Shelby questioned Obama's citizenship last week as he spoke to constituents, saying he had never seen a copy of Obama's birth certificate. Several other appeals are pending or have since been denied in New Jersey, Chicago and Hawaii, among other locations, to verify Obama's citizenship, World Net Daily reports.
9 May 2009
MP EXPENSES FRAUD
The modern [politician] is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness..."
Plenty of column inches have been devoted to this subject and rightly so. It is a huge scandal and should go on for a lot longer yet.
The sheer audacity that these politicians have when it comes to using our taxes. Claiming expenses on everything from taps, bathrobes and kitchens to rent, repairs and redecorations. We are well and truly run by an unremorseful Kleptocracy.
Kudos must of course go to the UK Daily Telegraph which began printing MP’s expenses. Highlighting government waste and fraud is what good journalism is and always should be about. The Daily Telegraph resisted efforts by many to suppress the publication of names and expenses until later on in the year, when it would have been released in a more sanitised version wherein key information would possibly have been blanked out.
Let’s make no mistake about it, it IS fraud and the police should be investigating it to the fullest extent of the law. It is of such a serious nature that it should even bring down the Government, having abrogated the moral high ground with their thievery. Unfortunately, it is not just Labour MPs who are caught up in this whole shameful episode, Tory MPs have remained disgracefully silent knowing their turn will come whilst Labour MPs, already named in the leaks, have the sheer gall to suggest that the Daily Telegraph and its journalists should be investigated.
Politicians, including prominent cabinet members, have also lined up to say they have not broken the rules – of course they haven’t when it is they who make the rules to suit themselves. This is a real life case of the fox promising to guard the chickens. The trouble, of course, is that the existence of a rule or law doesn’t make it just or acceptable. It doesn’t make it right to squander hard earned taxpayers money at a whim and then justify it by the same circular logic on the basis that it is a rule.
This attitude is particularly nauseating at a time when the National Debt is at an all time high and ordinary citizens are told to “tighten their belts”. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that those involved should be made to pay back the money – they should also be sacked and forfeit their pensions pending criminal prosecution.
Some have suggested an expenses card for MPs, which may work but, consider that politicians already get a decent wage by virtue of continually giving themselves pay rises, then why do they need expenses at all, other than for fair lodgings and travel? Consider also that politicians once out of politics get a very nice pension and on top of that have the ability to work, often in lucrative directorships, whilst getting it, a circumstance not applicable to most of the rest of society. Forgive my quaint way of thinking, but politics should not be about “getting rich”, it should be about service to the country. Ordinary citizens cannot and should not be allowed to get away with larceny and fraud at their place of work, so why should politicians?
The Queen, I believe, must do the right thing now and dissolve Parliament, owing to the fact that the population has lost all confidence in their elected representatives and a general election is the only way to restore it.
Should that happen we should kick the morally bankrupt cronies of the Labour Party out, by all means, but the problem is we will vote in the Conservatives and be in same situation in 5 or 10 years time, if not sooner, begging the Labour party to save us from their sleaze, corruption, fraud and mismanagement!
One wonders to what extent it goes on in our local and county councils where establishment parties swap leadership roles on a regular basis and nothing ever changes.
So, will we ever learn?
7 May 2009
'Eaten Alive': Mice Chew War Vet's Head
Source: Yahoo News
An 89-year-old war veteran has been found covered in blood after mice chewed his head at an Australian nursing home.
The man was discovered in a state of distress at the state government-run nursing home in south west Queensland.
Local MP Ray Hopper likened the situation to the Third World.
"I'm told by the elderly man's daughter that the poor old fellow had been trying to brush the mice away as they continued chewing his ears, head and neck," he said.
"He was so stressed that doctors put him on morphine to calm him down. He nearly died on Saturday night. He was being eaten alive."
The attack came to light when the man's daughter complained to the MP.
Queensland's Health Minister Paul Lucas has apologised to the victim and his family, and offered to relocate other residents of the facility.
The man's daughter said her father was unaware the mice attack took place.
"Because of his age, he's bed-ridden and he has limited communication ability," she said.
The woman told of her disbelief after seeing the injuries on Sunday. "It wasn't just a little nip. It wasn't nice at all," she said.
She added how her family still had complete faith in the nursing home staff, who have had a close relationship with the man during his two years there.
But Australia's Ageing Minister Justine Elliot has ordered an investigation into the procedures and processes at the home in Dalby, 130 miles west of Brisbane.
Karingal Nursing Home, an 80-bed facility with 22 residents over the age of 90, cannot operate without accreditation.
Extra staff and pest control contractors have been called in to deal with the vermin, a Queensland Health spokeswoman said.
An 89-year-old war veteran has been found covered in blood after mice chewed his head at an Australian nursing home.
The man was discovered in a state of distress at the state government-run nursing home in south west Queensland.
Local MP Ray Hopper likened the situation to the Third World.
"I'm told by the elderly man's daughter that the poor old fellow had been trying to brush the mice away as they continued chewing his ears, head and neck," he said.
"He was so stressed that doctors put him on morphine to calm him down. He nearly died on Saturday night. He was being eaten alive."
The attack came to light when the man's daughter complained to the MP.
Queensland's Health Minister Paul Lucas has apologised to the victim and his family, and offered to relocate other residents of the facility.
The man's daughter said her father was unaware the mice attack took place.
"Because of his age, he's bed-ridden and he has limited communication ability," she said.
The woman told of her disbelief after seeing the injuries on Sunday. "It wasn't just a little nip. It wasn't nice at all," she said.
She added how her family still had complete faith in the nursing home staff, who have had a close relationship with the man during his two years there.
But Australia's Ageing Minister Justine Elliot has ordered an investigation into the procedures and processes at the home in Dalby, 130 miles west of Brisbane.
Karingal Nursing Home, an 80-bed facility with 22 residents over the age of 90, cannot operate without accreditation.
Extra staff and pest control contractors have been called in to deal with the vermin, a Queensland Health spokeswoman said.
6 May 2009
Home Secretary Bans Michael Savage
(Open Letter)
"When injustice becomes law,
resistence becomes duty..."
Open Letter to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
Ms Smith,
I am absolutely astonished that you should choose to include Michael Savage on a list of people banned from this country, when you let in rapists, murderers, child traffickers, drug smugglers and terrorists wholesale every single day.
What you have done is reduce this country to a third world nation, where decent people are no longer safe and the rule of law has been perverted. People are far more likely to be locked up for trying to hold sensible discussion about immigration, or whether four year olds should learn about homosexuality, than for mugging an old lady, killing a child or raping a teenager.
This England has been ruined by you and your fellow traitors, all more concerned to grab more than your share from the public purse than make sensible decisions about taking care of the citizens of this country. Shame on you. Michael Savage would make a far better Home Secretary than any we have had to endure over the last few decades.
I hope this stupid decision of yours comes back to bite you.
Ted E. Bear
Sent by email to the Home Office on 6th May, 2009
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
resistence becomes duty..."
Open Letter to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
Ms Smith,
I am absolutely astonished that you should choose to include Michael Savage on a list of people banned from this country, when you let in rapists, murderers, child traffickers, drug smugglers and terrorists wholesale every single day.
What you have done is reduce this country to a third world nation, where decent people are no longer safe and the rule of law has been perverted. People are far more likely to be locked up for trying to hold sensible discussion about immigration, or whether four year olds should learn about homosexuality, than for mugging an old lady, killing a child or raping a teenager.
This England has been ruined by you and your fellow traitors, all more concerned to grab more than your share from the public purse than make sensible decisions about taking care of the citizens of this country. Shame on you. Michael Savage would make a far better Home Secretary than any we have had to endure over the last few decades.
I hope this stupid decision of yours comes back to bite you.
Ted E. Bear
Sent by email to the Home Office on 6th May, 2009
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
1 May 2009
SWINE FLU 'PANDEMIC'
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins."
Unless you've been living in a cave recently, with no internet or other form of media access, you will be aware that the world is now officially in panic mode about the potential of a 'Swine Flu' pandemic.
For those of you who don't know 'Swine Flu' or H1N1, as it is officially called, started in Mexico, so perhaps it shouldn't be called 'Swine Flu' at all, but Mexican Flu. It is a form of flu virus found in pigs, hence the name, however the infection has now reportedly been passed on to humans and from there could be passed on to other humans around the world... you get the grim picture being painted.
Let's stop the hysteria and think for a moment.
What is interesting here is how the World Health Organisation (WHO) have moved so quickly to hold emergency meetings to ratchet up the threat level to phase five out of a possible six phases. Six meaning that is it potentially a catastrophic situation. This is an almost unprecedented move.
With the globe in financial meltdown and now this you could say that peoples stress levels are at about phase eight.
Interestingly though, it has been admitted that "ordinary" human flu kills about 36,000 people, each year, in the United States alone, yet there is no government orchestrated panic. No 'sky-is-falling' mentality or rush to find urgent vaccines.
Other diseases such as Ebola and TB also kill many, many thousands of people on a regular basis and, given human propensity to travel in large numbers around the globe frequently thereby spreading such diseases, why is there no out of control panic?
Remember the last time Government orchestrated mass hysteria found its way onto the media pages? Avian Flu was going to wipe us all out, SARS was going to wipe us all out, we were all DOOMED!
One enduring memory of the whole shambolic attempt to foretell the end of the world was watching politicians and civil servants who went as far as drawing up a pecking order list of VIP's to get their vaccinations, the ordinary folk were left to fend for themselves... so nothing changes really. Then it was found the vaccines were useless anyway!
But don't worry even if there were a mass out break, the vast majority of ordinarily healthy people would survive. It is extremely unlikely that humanity would be wiped out. Even the plague, otherwise known as the black death, which lasted four years, spared the majority of people and this flu is by no means of plague proportions and let's face probably never will be.
What we need to do is calm down and deal with this threat rationally. Perhaps putting our energy and money into finding a cure for the common cold and flu instead.
People have speculated that politicians motives are not exactly pure in this situation (what??).
Could this be an excuse to introduce Martial Law? Only time will tell.
Unless you've been living in a cave recently, with no internet or other form of media access, you will be aware that the world is now officially in panic mode about the potential of a 'Swine Flu' pandemic.
For those of you who don't know 'Swine Flu' or H1N1, as it is officially called, started in Mexico, so perhaps it shouldn't be called 'Swine Flu' at all, but Mexican Flu. It is a form of flu virus found in pigs, hence the name, however the infection has now reportedly been passed on to humans and from there could be passed on to other humans around the world... you get the grim picture being painted.
Let's stop the hysteria and think for a moment.
What is interesting here is how the World Health Organisation (WHO) have moved so quickly to hold emergency meetings to ratchet up the threat level to phase five out of a possible six phases. Six meaning that is it potentially a catastrophic situation. This is an almost unprecedented move.
With the globe in financial meltdown and now this you could say that peoples stress levels are at about phase eight.
Interestingly though, it has been admitted that "ordinary" human flu kills about 36,000 people, each year, in the United States alone, yet there is no government orchestrated panic. No 'sky-is-falling' mentality or rush to find urgent vaccines.
Other diseases such as Ebola and TB also kill many, many thousands of people on a regular basis and, given human propensity to travel in large numbers around the globe frequently thereby spreading such diseases, why is there no out of control panic?
Remember the last time Government orchestrated mass hysteria found its way onto the media pages? Avian Flu was going to wipe us all out, SARS was going to wipe us all out, we were all DOOMED!
One enduring memory of the whole shambolic attempt to foretell the end of the world was watching politicians and civil servants who went as far as drawing up a pecking order list of VIP's to get their vaccinations, the ordinary folk were left to fend for themselves... so nothing changes really. Then it was found the vaccines were useless anyway!
But don't worry even if there were a mass out break, the vast majority of ordinarily healthy people would survive. It is extremely unlikely that humanity would be wiped out. Even the plague, otherwise known as the black death, which lasted four years, spared the majority of people and this flu is by no means of plague proportions and let's face probably never will be.
What we need to do is calm down and deal with this threat rationally. Perhaps putting our energy and money into finding a cure for the common cold and flu instead.
People have speculated that politicians motives are not exactly pure in this situation (what??).
Could this be an excuse to introduce Martial Law? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
