Taking a break

I am very busy at the moment and don't think I can do my blog justice at the moment, so I am taking a break for a while. Rest assured, I will be back, sooner rather than later :)

Troubled Labour government floats a new policy...

In a ground-breaking statement that proves that the government has not run out of ideas, the PM has declared that pensioners can swim for free in council pools all across the country. This comes just weeks after the big budget shocker about taxing plastic bag... possibly... in the future... if the supermarkets don't do it themselves... maybe... Please forgive the sarcasm, but I am tried of such inconsequential trifles being heralded as though they are a modern day New Deal. The biggest tragedy of this whole debacle is the fact that many council pools across the country are closing down, further limiting the impact of this dire policy.

The reason why such inane policies are even mentioned in the media is further proof that our Parliament has been severely and perhaps inexorably emasculated. We no longer rule ourselves, this has been true for a long time, but it is getting progressively worse. Around eighty percent of our laws legislated by our once sovereign Parliament are in fact European dictats, handed down from the European Commission, an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels.

As more and more government responsibilities have been appropriated by Brussels (or more accurately slavishly given away by a complicit and compliant Whitehall) the sphere of influence has steadily eroded to the current state of affairs where free swimming sessions for pensioners is deemed worthy of a press release.

We will not get serious politics from our Parliament until we regain our sovereignty and liberty to make our own laws by removing ourselves from the political entity of the European Union.

Hillary wins popular vote, but Obama is the nominee

It is with a large sense of schadenfraude that I learn of the amusingly ironic fact that despite winning the popular vote, Hillary Clinton lost the Democrat Presidential nomination to Barack Obama - despite the party employing a proportional representation system to avoid such an eventuality.

Frustratingly, the media don't seem to be particularly animated about the fact that Obama is the nominee, despite losing the popular vote. Back in 2000, the popular vote was deemed sacrosanct, indeed it was considered more important that the rule of law. The U.S. Constitution and over two hundred years of federalism was declared to be irrelevent and out-dated, the popular will of the American people should decide who is the President.

Perhaps I am too cynical (a distinct, though in my opinion unlikely, possibility) in suggesting that the reasons for this lay in the respective positions of the media's overwhelmingly preferred candidate (Gore in 2000 and Obama in 2008). In 2000, it was Gore who was the unfortunate, "rightful" winner of the contest, the victim of a conservative, Republican inspired conspiracy involving the Supreme Court "picking" the President; this all in spite of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court simply upheld the law, which liberals on the Florida Supreme Court had decided to ignore to allow their candidate more time and more recounts to try to drag Gore over the finishing line. Following the eventual acceptance and inauguration President Bush (43), there were calls from many on the political Left replace the electoral system in favour of a more democratic and European style politics, based around proportional representation overturning centuries of tradition, states-rights, federalism and the foundation of the American republic - the defining characteristics of U.S. government and society.

Contrast this to the present day, in 2008 the popular vote has subsequently and mysteriously transformed from the be-all-and-end-all, the requirement of "true" democracy to an irrelevant, procedural trifle that is barely worth considering; all of this, because the "right" candidate won. This instance, as well as the debacle over Michigan and Florida out of which Mrs Clinton herself hardly comes smelling of roses, proves the mentality of the Left, that the ends truly justify the means. When you accept that your ends are more important that the means you use to get there, you quickly become quite unscrupulous, willing to do almost anything to win, sacrificing truth and ethics at the altar of victory.

Throughout this whole fiasco, the primacy of power, not principle, resounds.

Israel prepares for Obama Presidency

Israel expects likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama to win the Presidency in November and is so worried by the prospect that they are preparing for a final settlement with their enemies to secure defensible borders. Why is Israel so scared of an Obama Presidency that they are potentially willing to cede the Golan Heights to Syria and create an Arab state in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) in order to achieve a lasting settlement? Simply because they fear that he would pressure them to concede even more, they fear he would push little Israel in to an agreement that completely untenable, leaving Israel a smaller, indefensible state. Why do they fear this?

Whilst he may not have openly made anti-Semitic statement - he is a careful politician afterall - he clearly has no problem working closely with anti-Semites. The Pastor of his church (the same church he has attended for the past 20 years) lauded vicious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan with the Trumpeter Award, saying he "truly epitomised greatness." Obama initially defended Wright, blaming white oppression for his Pastor's racism. He then claimed he didn't know about the extreme anti-American and anti-Semitic views of Jeremiah Wright, this is his Pastor of 20 years, a man he calls his mentor. He only distanced himself from the explosive comments only after it was politically expedient to do so. We are left to conclude that whilst there is nothing to suggest that Obama is an anti-Semite, he clearly has no problem with anti-Semitism in those he surrounds himself with, which - in my book - make him guilty by association. For most people, if their church celebrated a prominent racist and anti-Semite, it would be time to find a new church - or at least register their protest. But Obama did neither.

Obama hired General Merrill McPeak, as his military advisor and co-chair of his presidential campaign. This man is a longtime critic of Israel, condemning the Jewish state harshly during his career, arguing that American Jews hinder peace in the region and even blamed the Iraq war on the Jews. Again, none of this bothered Obama... until it became public. Obama does not care about anti-Semitism in his advisors, until it may be politically damaging to him.

Obama has even suggested talking with Iran, without any preconditions, just as Chamberlain did with Hitler at Munich. The Iranian government is a vile, anti-Semitic regime that is seeking a nuclear weapon and has promised to wipe Israel off of the map. This is why there are groups, such as Jews Against Obama, who have been formed to oppose an Obama Presidency.

So with all of this evidence, it is understandable that Israel would fear being bullied and pressured by such a President. The USA is one of Israel's only friends. The liberal EU is anti-Israel and very pro-Palestinian, the UN is openly hostile to Zionism and unashamedly anti-Semitic, Russia supplies aggressive arab regimes with military equipment. If Obama becomes President, that would make it four anti-Israel members out of the four partners who make up the "Quartet on the Middle East." Without a strong and determined government, prepared to stand up for what is best for Israel, even against international denunciations and reprobation, the weight of international pressure, without any ally, would force the country into an unprecedented series of dangerous concessions that threaten the future security of the Jewish state.

Even the Olmert government understands that an Obama Presidency would be catastrophic for Israel.

Transexual with hurt feelings gets £250,000 from MOD

It has been revealed that a former paratrooper who had a sex-change operation has received a £250,000 out-of-court settlement from the MoD because she* was summoned to attend a medical in male dress uniform. When Jan (formerly Ian**) Hamilton refused to attend the interview, she found herself out of a job and sued the MoD for sexual discrimination and unfair dismissal. Whilst one may sympathise with her position, I hardly see how the dismissal was unfair, given that she refused to attend a medical required for the position. Male uniform was required of any other person born a man, (so there was no discrimination) and I seriously doubt that having to wear a pair of keks and a shirt for an hour would have traumatised anyone. As for the "sexual discrimination," these words mean very little objectively, they can mean whatever any self-identified victim wants them to. When you remove objectivity from the law and base legislation on the perception of the "victim," then you have irrevocably biased judicial proceedings in favour of the plaintiff, but again that it an argument for another day.

She claims that it would have been "humiliating and demeaning" to go to a medical, dressed in male uniform. For this, we as a society, deem it worthy to give her a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayers money? When the MoD can't even equip our troops properly? It is a disgrace. I don't wish to get into an argument about transexualism because that is not the issue, but suffice is to say that there is no actual injury here, other than some hurt feelings. Clearly, even if one agrees there is a case to answer, any settlement should reflect reality and it would be ludicrous to propose it be larger than four figures.

What makes this situation so much worse, is that "according to current MoD settlements, soldiers receive £57,000 for the loss of a leg and £285,000 for the loss of both arms or legs." Daily Telegraph. This shows the twisted values of our government and judicial system, you can put your life on the line and lose a limb for your country and you will get £57,000, but if you are a transexual office worker with hurt feelings you get a payout worth almost five times as much. It is an offence to decency and dignity that men and women who risk death and serious injury to protect us, who are placed in danger by the government, should receive a slap in the face such as this. It just shows the contempt with which "compassionate" liberals treat our brave servicemen and women.


* I refer to Jan Hamilton as a 'she' out of courtesy, not because I necessarily recognise her as such.
** Ian did opt to go private for his sex-change, paying around £20,000.

France 2 deceived the public over Mohammed al-Dura

A French appeal court has thrown out the libel conviction of Phillipe Karsenty who accused France 2 of doctoring footage of the apparent killing of Mohammed al-Dura. France 2 ran the report, filmed by a Palestinian cameraman, with the editorial comment that the IDF were responsible for killing 12 year old Mohammed al-Dura. The boy became a poster-child of the second intifada, his 'martyrdom' spread across the Islamic world, hundreds of schools were named after him. The death of this young boy severely damaged the image of Israel and the IDF, serving as a great propaganda victory for arabs and anti-Zionist Western liberals as well as other anti-Semites. For those with only a passing interest, who watch the evening news, they are left with the impression that it really was as simple as that, the IDF indiscriminately fired into a crowd in response to teens throwing stones and killed a young boy.

However, for those who were not satisfied with the 'official' verdict (packaged and sold to the Western media by the arabs) there is significant evidence to question the veracity of the claims. Many argue that the footage was staged (a common arab practice, see here or a particularly good set of examples here) and that Mohammed al-Durah did not die on that day at Netzarim, pointing to quite convincing evidence here. You can see quite a lot of footage from that day for yourself, as it is posted on the seconddraft.org website. Whether Mohammed al-Dura was killed is a matter of debate. However, if the child was indeed shot and killed, it was certainly not by the IDF. From their position the ballistic evidence is clear, Israeli soldiers were physically unable of firing the shots that killed the young boy. The conclusion of the Doriel investigation, amongst others, was that considering the ballistic evidence, the child can only have been shot from directly behind the camera, a position from where Palestinian gunmen were firing. If the boy is dead, then Arab terrorists killed the him for propaganda purposes knowing that they could serve their lies to the unquestioning servile Western media agencies desperate for some dirt they can use to smear the name of Israel.




I don't presume the France 2 deliberately doctored the footage, or that they deliberately lied, but Western journalists bought into this lie for several important reasons. Firstly, part of the reason is lurid sensationalism; a young boy being killed by soldiers, on tape, is so attractive to the modern media mind that they don't bother asking questions about the truth of the situaton. As Mark Twain said, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. But why did journalists not question the facts of such an emotive, explosive and dangerous accusation that is certain to have very real and damaging consequences? Simply because it plays into their pre-existing narrative about the evil, oppressive IDF brutalising and indiscriminately killing poor, defenceless Palestinians. There is a strong stream of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism running through the elite, Western, liberal circles from where most journalists derive their ideology. They didn't question it because they assumed it was true, it confirmed their own prejudice and stereotypes, and because they wanted it to be true. They knew the political impact it would have, they knew perfectly well that this terrible case would be immensely damaging to Israel, portraying them in a horrific light - that is exactly what they wanted. This was a propaganda victory for the arabs and Western liberals, so why would they question it?

Now that it has proven to be a lie, will the media retract their insidious, anti-Semitic, libelous accusations? Will they run full page spreads apologising for their 'error'? Somehow, I doubt it.

For more on the ways in which the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered in the media, honestreporting.com, palestinefacts.org, and CAMERA all do a fantastic job of deciphering liberal myths, and elucidating truth. Finally, this short video shows many of the ways in which media reporting is horribly biased against Israel, critically examining photographs taken during the recent Lebanon war and circulated in the West.

Israel discovers missile launchers in Gaza schoolyard

Israel have discovered rocket launchers, based in a school yard, in Northern Gaza.This is a rocket launcher and anti-tank missles, were discovered in a school playground in Gaza. In the background, you can see the school basketball court. The arabs were using the school building and facilities to organise and carry-out acts of terror against innocent Israeli civilians and to attack IDF soldiers and tanks attempting to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their murderous mission.

This is what the IDF is up against, Israel is facing an enemy that takes up offensive positions in schools, that lives and hides within civilian populations. Terrorists use civilians as unwilling human shields, in the hope that Israel will not attack them, fearing the potential (or near certainty) of civilian casualties. This is not an ordinary war, there are no rules in this conflict, when the enemy uses its own people as a political tool, to protect them in their insidious and evil schemes. They don't follow the rules of war.

The arab terrorists do not respect religion, sacred places or houses of worship. In 2002, Palestinian Authority security force terrorists, holed themselves up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, holding priests, monks and nuns hostage and firing on IDF positions for many days, knowing that Israel would be careful to respect the important Christian site. The terrorists urinated in the church and looted candle sticks, icons and anything that looked gold. They don't even respect their own holy sites, as in 1948, terrorists routinely took up sniper positions from the top of the Hassan Bek Mosque in Tel Aviv and fired upon Jewish civilians in the surrounding streets. Although, since killing Jews is promoted in Islam, perhaps it was seen as a holy act of worship, we will never know... Clearly, they knew the Jewish soldiers would be reluctant to attack a place of worship, due to their own morality and the fact that Western opinion would criticise the destruction of holy sites.

What is certain is that Israel simply can not lay down and let the terrorists attack them with impunity whilst they cowardly hide in civilian areas and places of worship. To refrain from confronting the terrorists would be an invitation for more and more attacks as these groups grow in both number and confidence. The IDF simply has to try to stop suicide bombing and rocket attacks against innocent civilians. But if they go after the terrorists with boots on the ground, there will be massive losses on both sides as urban warfare is notioriously bloody for both sides. The only option left for Israel is rocket attacks on terrorist convoys and positions, when colletaral damage will be as limited as possible. Israel can not eliminate collateral damage, which is exactly what the terrorists want.

The West needs to understand the facts of the conflict, rather than accepting the biased arab view of things, because it plays into their prejudiced, anti-Semitic politicised stereotypes. Israel needs to be commended for minimising the numbers of arab civilian casualties as best it can. This is the true distinction between Israel and the arabs, Israel tries hard to avoid civilian casualties and regrets their inevitability, for the arab's civilian death is their goal.

Commons keeps abortion limit at 24 weeks.

So, after much media interest, the Commons voted to keep the abortion limit at 24 weeks, in part because of under-the-radar arm twisting by Labour whips, completely immoral in what was supposed to be a free vote. Despite this, it was not the grand ethical discussion it was made out to be, for at issue was whether legalised abortion for convenience should be resticted to the first 20 weeks or the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. They were disputing minutiae, they had all accepted the same argument and were just splitting hairs.We have fallen so far as a society that the morality of killing an unborn child is not even questioned in our highest lawmaking chamber, just a minor tinkering around the edges.

Those who are in favour of legalised abortion pretend, to themselves mostly, that they want women to be able to have control over their own bodies. In reality, they want to be able to have sex, without the responsibilities and natural consequences (that is babies for any liberals reading...), they are attempting to divorce sex from procreation. It is no surprise that young males are the biggest supporters of legalised abortion. Rather than enlightened ideals, people favour abortion for their own selfish, base reasons of sexual satisfaction.

I am personally "pro-choice," I agree with liberals that no woman should be forced to carry a baby to term, I don't propose forcibly inseminating anyone. However, if a woman chooses to have sex, (with or without contraception), she has to accept the risk (however small) that she will become pregnant and the responibility to bring that child to term. There is an implicit contract with the life that she creates through her own actions, chosen of her own free will.

I also resent being labelled as the extremist in this debate, am I the one suggesting that it is acceptable to kill the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, simply because they are an inconvenience?

Plight of Jewish refugees raised at the UN

Last month, UN Watch testified before the UN Human Rights Council on Forgotten Refugees, about the Jewish refugees kicked out of Arab countries in 1948-9. The speech can be viewed via the UN Watch website. Despite a myriad of resolutions covering the Arab-Israeli conflict and a whole branch of the UN dedicated to the arab refugees of the conflict, this was the first time that Jewish victims have been discussed at the UN. This fact is indicative of the anti-Semitism and blatant pro-arab bias at the UN, the fact that the true facts of the case are rarely mentioned in the press and on tv shows the narrow, liberal slant of our media completely enthralled by the arab cause.

The facts of the case are quite simple. When Israel declared independence, five surrounding arab countries declared war, immediately invading in order to kill all of the Jews in the area. Many Arab officials advised Arabs in Israel to leave, promising that they would be able to return once the area had been ethnically cleansed. Then Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha stated that “The Arabs intend to conduct a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” At the same time, 850,000 Jews were forced out of their homes in Arab countries without compensation for their property, worth $300 billion today and accounted for 100,000 sq.km of land (four times the size of Israel). Over 680,000 of these people found shelter in the land of Israel, whilst there were problems with dealing with such a large influx of people in a fledgling nation, they were welcomed and were able to get on with their lives. Arab governments deliberately condemned their brothers to lives of misery in refugee camps, as part of a political, propaganda campaign against the state of Israel.

That these facts are never presented in media reporting about the Arab-Israeli conflict, greatly distorts the debate and presenting an unwitting bias against Israel, affecting an unsuspecting public.

Conservative win by-election with 17% swing

Conservative candidate, Edward Timpson, has won a resounding victory in a local by-election (the Tories first since before yours truly was born). The Conservatives and many in the media are hailing this success as the sign that the Tories will win the next election. This is overstating the importance of an isolated (if impressive) win, but it does indicate that, for the first time since 1997, the Tories will at least be in contention come the general election. Government's often lose by-elections, then go on to win a victory in the national election and a swing of 17% is hardly unprecedented in a by-election. There are several others reasons why a Tory victory is not guaranteed next time around.

This is not exactly the Labour stronghold that has been alleged; the constituency was created in 1983, merging Labour Crewe with Conservative Nantwich. Gwenyth Dunwoody won the seat with a very slender 250 seat majority in 1983, increasing her share of the vote by being an active local MP. Whilst not taking anything away from the victory, Nantwich was always going to vote for the Tory and Labour's vote in Crewe was likely to be depressed due to the government's current political problems (economic difficulties, 10p tax and Jan Berry's attack on Home Secretary Jaqui Smith). The Labour vote will be more motivated in 2010 and current problems won't be around in two years time.

Also, Labour botched the campaign with a very juvenile attack alleging that Mr Timpson is a "toff," a cringe-worthy throwback to class warfare of the eighties (ironically, the Labour candidate is part of the landed gentry, whilst the Conservative candidate is not). However, Labour will not make the same mistake in the general election, they might make a nod and a wink to the Eton background of "Call me Dave" Cameron and many of his shadow cabinet, but this certainly won't be the main platform of their attack.

Perhaps more importantly, the Conservative victory does not mean a conservative victory. If the Tories win the next election, will we really notice the difference? Yes, the country may be slightly better managed, but on virtually all important issues of policy there will be little discernable difference between a Conservative and a Labour government. Cameron won't seriously protect the family, even though he is less likely to continue the assault that has happened under Labour. The Conservatives won't change the sycophantic nature of the British relationship with Europe at all, nor will they radically improve the disgraceful state of our education system. So, congratulations to Mr. Timpson, but I am sure you will forgive me if I don't feel much like celebrating...