skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On Monday, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott addressed his country's people while the terrorist hostage siege in the Lindt Café in Sydney played out.
Standing in front of a Christmas tree (oh, how anti-diversity of him), Mr. Abbott said: "'[O]ur thoughts and prayers must above all go out to the individuals who are caught up in this. I can think of almost nothing more distressing, more terrifying than to be caught up in such a situation, and our hearts go out to those people".
But if I was Mr. Abbott, I would have said at Martin Place, in the wake of the siege, while Sydneysiders were lying flowers on the ground near the café in honor of victims Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson, "to all of you who took selfies of yourselves in front of the Lindt establishment while the drama was going on, who thought this situation was 'cool', and was nothing more than an opportunity to earn likes on Facebook or Twitter, go home. Get out of here now. You did not care then; why should you care now? No-one wants to see you here. As a result of your selfish, callous and morally vacuous actions, you have nullified any right to be here."
There are many questions to be asked about the gunman Man Haron Monis, who Abbott noted had "a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability". Australian authorities will have to account for why Monis had his asylum accepted, why he had a gun license, why he was walking free in society after murdering his wife and, above all, why he was not on a terrorist watchlist.
But more chilling than Monis's actions in Sydney's financial district earlier this week was the reaction to it. Social media has not only given us the cretinous Cro Magnons that thought they were clever to snap photos of themselves in front of the café during the height of the drama. It has also given us those halfwits whose response to this tragedy is to think not of the victims and the suffering and anguish of the siege survivors, but to re-assure Australian Muslims.
The Australian sense of "fair go" used to be what made that country so charming, and so great. Not now. Not with regard to this. This type of acceptance will bring Australia down.
The hashtag generation, the same people that have shown such jurisprudence and acted with such dignity with regard to Mike "Gentle Giant" Brown and Eric Garner by protesting in the middle of main thoroughfares and calling for the death of cops, struck back against "Islamophobia" by creating #illridewithyou, to show solidarity with Muslim citizens.
While I certainly agree that no innocent Muslim should have to suffer for Monis's crimes, this movement speaks to a larger issue. Namely, if you even for a moment questioned Islam's place in Australia's open and generous society in the wake of Bali and now the Lindt café siege, then you are the problem. You are what's wrong with Australia and the West. The Muslim community must be protected—über alles!
Social media was either in its infancy or practically non-existent during the time of 9/11 and the Bali bombings. One now wonders what the righteous response of liberal mush-heads everywhere would have been: #illflywithyou and #illgotoanightclubwithyou?
This absolutely spits in the face of every siege survivor, that the first thoughts of their young liberal countrymen was not, "how are the hostages?", but "oh, anyone with a dark beard or a hijab is going to face potential abuse today."
And what credit will this buy us with the Muslim community? We'll just end up, as usual, looking like saps—useful idiots—to them. They won't be appreciative for more than three seconds before declaring jihad all the fuck over again. No wonder they're slowly taking over the entire world. Vladimir Putin shakes his head at how the rest of the West automatically celebrates Islam and regularly turns a blind eye to its atrocities. The Russian leader is correct in this assessment.
It doesn't matter how often this happens, at Ford Hood, in Moore, Oklahoma, in Pakistan, in Sydney, in London, in Madrid, in Boston, in New York, etc. It's always, without fail, a case of forgive and forget.
It's only a matter of a very short time before this generosity of thought and action results in a networked caliphate of the West, a land where Sharia law is the only law.
Imagine if this curse known as social media had existed during the 1970s and '80s. How many mulligans do you believe would have been handed to the Irish community in the wake of an IRA bombing? How many hashtags showing solidarity with them would have been created, do you think?
And, where were the hashtags offering to walk and ride with ordinary Jewish citizens during the Hamas-initiated atrocities concerning Gaza earlier this year? Anti-Semitism is at record levels across the world. One could argue that Jews are in danger everytime they step out their front doors. How many people have offered to protect Jews? Oh, gee, that's right: There were no such offers. Nothing makes a social media-dependent Left-winger happier than a beaten-up, degraded Jew. Of course, these people would throw their own mothers into a gas chamber if some bespectacled beardy-weirdy patted them on the back and told them that they were a good, tolerant, diversity-celebrating person to do so.
I'll demonstrate to you how seriously the Muslim community takes its role in a Western society, dear reader: You may have heard about the indefensible (because it was absolutely preventable) tragedy that afflicted the town of Rotherham in northern England. Between 1997 and 2013, sixteen years in total, local white girls as young as twelve were drawn into white slavery by men of Pakistani extraction. The authorities did nothing about it because, (1) they simply couldn't be bothered and (2) they were fearful of getting on the wrong side of the political correctness fence. If they exposed this wrongdoing and attributed it to Asians (a.k.a. Muslims), it would bring about repercussions that they weren't prepared (i.e. weren't willing) to handle.
Sure, you can blame the complete cowardice of the Rotherham police force. But that would be akin to blaming a dog for its fleas, simply because it is accustomed to rolling about on the ground. The police were tied by the then-Labour government's absurd law enforcement guidelines. The real issue is the total callousness with which members of the Muslim community went about exploiting the native population.
And how have they responded to the Rotherham scandal? A group of Muslim cab drivers have spoken out against a policy in which their taxi company will provide a white driver if so requested by a customer. This, in their view, amounts to "unprecedented and unacceptable" racism. The Rochdale Muslim Community group has taken up their cause, and this the statement they released, in full:
"It has become evident to anyone that follows events in the media that Islam is being portrayed negatively and that Muslims living in Britain are bearing the brunt of discrimination and violence. There is little doubt that this has resulted in not only the community feeling vilified but could potentially break down social cohesion within society. Irresponsible comments from senior local and national politicians are aiding the negative portrayal of the Muslim community. Time and time again some politicians and the media have attempted to equate issues such as grooming and the Muslim community as being one and the same. It is only natural that this sort of misinformation will stigmatise the whole of the Muslim community. This has meant that casual xenophobia towards Muslims has now become an acceptable norm. Unfortunately, we are now facing a situation where a disdain of the Muslim community is something which is deemed acceptable. We do not wish to go back to a situation where discrimination against minorities becomes the norm. We believe that all segments of society have a duty to stand up against Islamophobia in all of its guises no matter how subtle or apparent. We intend to double our efforts in order to alleviate the misconceptions that have been manufactured by irresponsible speech, not only by farright but mainstream politicians and the media. Part of our action plan will be to educate the wider society about the Islamic belief to help overcome stereotypes against Islam."
Tempted as I was to truncate the above statement, I couldn't. Why? Because I wanted to demonstrate that there were no apologies offered for the scandal or even any recognition of why it was such a sensitive issue for the local population. There is not even one sentence stating, "While we can understand the sentiments of the local community and its justifiable anger and distrust, we want to work to correct that." I don't know if I'd believe it, frankly, but it would have been nice to see it in the statement. But, alas, this declaration amounts to nothing more than "We are having a tough time of it. You need to try harder to understand our concerns. When something rotten happens as a result of our community being here, you will just have to suck it up. If there is any social cohesion breakdown as a result, then it is your fault for not being tolerant of Islam, the ultimate religion of peace, which you stupid white infidels refuse to embrace and over which we would happily slaughter you all if there was any chance of getting away with it".
This is the sort of attitude that gets handed down to us by the Muslim community and their defenders, everywhere, every day. I don't know why the hashtag generation is so worried. Their precious pet people have got the world by the balls. But yet, so do liberals, and they don't realize it either. Everyone's got to be a victim.
Here we are in the lead-up to Christmas (not "holidays," thank you very much, but Christmas), a mere fourteen days away. But you wouldn't know it by the way some people act.
Anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by Mary Poppins or any Hugh Grant movie you care to mention knows that London has its fair share of downright nasty people, the sort you find yourself wishing would get a pistol-whipping sometime soon. You can't help but think, how did they get this far in life without once having had the bejesus beaten out of them?
Standing in line at the Marks & Spencer Simply Food store at Liverpool Street last night, I heard a man who was probably in his 40s raising his voice at one of the check-out points. The cashier had made the decision to deny him the purchase of a bottle of wine because he already appeared too loaded.
Predictably, in the manner of a spoiled, entitled, elite-educated schoolboy, he kicked off. "What do you mean I can't have this?" Then, a flurry of curse words and ad hominems. And the accusation that the cashiers—by this time, three of them were present to confront this "gentleman"—were the type "to join and fight for ISIS." More curse words, more insults, more crybaby behavior. And finally, for the parting shot, "Marks & Spencer, run by Jews!"
At one point, he pulled the ol' "Do you know who I am?" schtick, identifying himself as working for The Evening Standard. Ah, The Evening Standard. The same rabble-rousing rag owned by a former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev. No wonder the paper is free; no sane person would pay a penny for it.
Why exactly am I relating the tale of this shit smear on two legs? Good question, dear reader.
Firstly, I guess it's to demonstrate that there are bad apples on any position on the political spectrum. I would postulate that he and I would agree on many things. He may have voted for David Cameron. I would have done so as well, had I the vote here. He also may have voted for Boris Johnson, loathes Ken Livingston and bristles at the way his taxes are being used to fund layabouts. Again, same here.
But I am not going to defend a loud-mouthed bully. I don't know if the workers at the M&S food store are all Muslim. They do seem to be predominantly Pakistani or Indian. Some of them could be Hindu. At least they're working. I don't care if they break out the prayer mats at certain times of the day. They're fellow tax-payers.
I'm often tough on the Muslim community myself. But only when it displays intolerant or jihad-sympathetic behavior or appears to be on the receiving end of special treatment. In this sense, I regard them no differently than gay militants, black militants, feminist militants, et al. These people talk about celebrating diversity, but it's just a means to an end, and a very convenient one at that, for them. They don't live by their rule at all, but will tell me that I have issues with diversity and acceptance.
I have three simple rules by which I abide. One, that you get your butt out of bed and out of the house and contribute to society in some meaningful way. Two, if you're OK living next door to me, I won't give you any attitude either. Three, that you aren't possessed of a desire to kill me. That's it. Simple, is it not? Work. Show me respect (and expect to receive it in return). And don't advocate the death of me or others like me. That's all I ask.
If you're going to break one of my cardinal rules by being disrespectful and not taking responsibility for yourself, then I will not befriend you. I don't care how much we may have in common. I really like German Shepherd dogs. That does not make me a fan of Adolf Hitler.
Secondly, I wanted to demonstrate that I am not blind to the jerks of the world who may so happen to hold conservative views. Again, there are bad apples in every group, every walk of life. When was the last time a liberal, anywhere, told off the idiots in their midst who go too far? One of the biggest reasons why the Occupy protests quickly became so infamous was due to the fact that no standards were maintained. They absorbed any bum with a grievance and a penchant for hard drugs or alcohol abuse into their camps.
Any Lefty protest anywhere is going to have a very sizeable contingent of black-clad anarchist creeps in Guy Fawkes masks. You can bet the house on it. But do these cretins ever get called out or challenged by the protest leaders?
Here's another rhetrocial question, just for the hell of it: If you didn't wipe your behind, would it stink? (Just ask an Occu-pooper.)
As for you, Mr. Evening Standard guy: You're lucky that I was headed into work after making my purchases and didn't have the time for a confrontation. Otherwise, I absolutely would have taken you to the woodshed.
Happy days are here again, dear reader!
For the first time in six years, I can be proud to be an American again.
The Republican wave which failed to materialize in 2010—though Nancy Pelosi did have to give up her gavel—has occurred. Talk about cutting it finely. These mid-term elections were the last chance Americans had at saving their country from becoming a Bolivarian-style banana republic.
Republicans now own the Senate and they have increased their presence in the House of Representatives. Republicans have not had this much control since 1946.
As spineless as Republicans can be, and have proven to be, I believe that will change once they take their seats in January. They will get to work—and there's a lot of that to be done.
Finally, we have a majority, and a mandate, to stop this President dead in his tracks. No more amnesty. No more increasing of the debt. No more butchering of our military. No more ineffective and illegal wars in the Middle East.
Let Obama veto legislation presented to him. Republicans will overturn it. Let him issue executive orders. Republicans will nix them.
Even in the moonbat's moonbat state of Taxachusetts, voters said no to an automatic rise in the gas tax. In Charlie Baker, we have a Republican governor once more. With Martha Coakley sent out to pasture, and the long-anticipated departure of Deval "Mini-Me" Patrick, the dirt and grime of Democrat corruption in the state, most notably in the areas of welfare and social services, can be cleaned up.
It is disappointing that Scott Brown lost to Jean Shaheen in New Hampshire. But Shaheen's victory could well be a Pyrrhic one. She will be under investigation for her role in the IRS scandal à la Lois Lerner. She was a signatory to a 2012 letter that asked IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman "to immediately change" the tax code to enact punitive measures against conservative non-profit groups. She is one of many corrupt Democrats that Republicans are going to be gunning for.
Futhermore, Shaheen used illegal voting to win in New Hampshire. As talk-show host Jeff Kuhner said on his Wednesday program, "You have buses rolling in and out of Manchester, they're staying at hotels. Nobody speaks English, everybody speaks Spanish. They all come in and vote, and then, by the next day, they're gone. So, was there voter fraud that took place in New Hampshire? I'm telling you, I'm 99.999 percent sure it did. I do not believe that Jean Shaheen won the election [yesterday] fair and square."
Benghazi will be persued. Fast & Furious will be persued. The aforementioned IRS scandal will be investigated. By the time Republicans are done, Obama will be begging for impeachment. At which point, the answer should clearly be, "Oh, no, Mr. President. You wanted this office, you're here till the end." Enjoy your time out on the golf course while you still can, Barry.
Congratulations Governors-elect Scott Walker, Charlie Baker, Doug Ducey, Rick Scott, Bruce Rauner, Paul LaPage, Larry Hogan, Rick Snyder, Senators-elect Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, David Perdue, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and Represenatives-elect Mike Coffman, Renee Ellmers, Michael Grimm and Carlos Curbelo.
Special congratulations to Representative-elect Mia Love and Senator-elect Tim Scott. Tim Scott is the first black man to be elected to the Senate from the South. Mia Love is black and female, the first such Republican to be elected to Congress. A historic night for them and for African-Americans. Don't count on the media to fawn over them the way they do for Obama. Scott and Love escaped the plantation; they have subsequently and predictably been ignored by those who don't matter.
What does matter is that we are now finding our way out of a socialist, anti-American wilderness sowed and tendered by truly bitter, immature people. Six years of being lost in the Impenetrable Bolshevik Forest has come to an end. A path to freedom has been blazed by level-headed people who embrace life, not victimhood.
I had lost faith in the the system our Founding Fathers had concocted. I thought, "no-one is following the Constitution anymore and elections get stolen through illegal voting and gerrymandering. All is lost." Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton: they are not turning in their graves anymore. Right now, the brilliance of their brainchild is shining brightly for all to see. The Fathers could predict the rise of a would-be dictator and the form of government they gifted us with locks down on that like white blood cells on a virus. These elections were the ultimate civics lesson.
It is truly morning again in America. (And what a gift for my 45th!)
I don't know if you're aware, dear reader, but I like airplanes. I am interested in makes and models of airplanes, and seeing them up close is always fascinating for me.
So when my wife proposed a day out at Brooklands Museum, I agreed. In addition to being the site of the world's first motor circuit in 1907, British airplanes, such as the Vickers range of aircraft, were built here from the 1940s right through to the 1970s. In fact, a BAC 1-11 and Vickers VC-10 are displayed on site. They are both huge planes, definitely comparable in size to an A340 and B747 respectively, with massive "whale fluke" T-tails. Check out the tail from the VC-10:
The VC-10 is second only to Concorde in having achieved the fastest transatlantic flight time.
The really big draw to Brooklands is the supersonic Concorde herself. Specifically, the G-BBDG, the first production type for the British model Concorde aircraft, used to test the design before the aircraft was certified for passenger service. G-BBDG debuted in February 1974 and was retired on Christmas Eve 1981, having notched up 1,282 hours flight time in total, and has been at Brooklands since 2003.
Squirrel has a real soft spot for Concorde and I was keen to visit her too. She is, after all, a legend. This was the plane that, from 1976 to 2003, travelled at twice the speed of sound, achieved a maximum height of 53,500 feet (over 10 miles high) and got you from London or Paris to New York in three hours.
The thing you hear about Concorde is that she is "diminutive". She is quite graceful, and admittedly on the small side as far as commercial aircraft go. Having said that, she is much larger than most people anticipate before seeing her in person. She drew my breath away upon first sight. I don't think diminutive is an accurate way to describe Concorde at all.
The Concorde Experience at Brooklands allows you to enter the aircraft and take a seat for a 10-minute flight simulation. Squirrel and I were both honored to have claimed some space, even for a short time, on this beautiful bird.
As you have probably guessed, given that this aircraft achieved a speed of Mach 2, the cockpit is a cluster of superfine gadgetry:
And there you go, our date with lady Concorde!
During the past fourteen years that I have been living in the U.K., I have often been asked by people if I miss "the States".
I used to answer, "no offense, but yes."
But now, I would answer an unequivocal "no." Does that no longer make me a patriot?
Readers who know me well, especially those who remember my days on Diaryland, would acknowledge that I was so blisteringly angry about the anti-Iraq War—and, by proxy, anti-American—fervor taking place throughout the world ten years ago that I seriously considered joining up (I was 34 at the time). Only a long conversation with my father, a former Marine, held me back and convinced me not to do so.
What heady days those were. I was a pro-pot, pro-Bush neocon with a love of language, especially if it was salty. Above all, at all times, I considered myself a true patriot. One of the memes I had at the end of every entry announced "America For True Americans!"
I missed Boston. I missed the Charles River parkway. I missed the Watertown Stop & Shop supermarket. Of course, I especially missed my family. I longed for everything that defined my life from the '70s right up to 2000, when I moved here for good. And I did not have cause to think twice about boarding a Boeing 747 bound for the American east coast whenever I could afford such a flight.
Fast forward to November 2008. I thought the America I knew and loved was over when Barack Obama got elected to the highest office in the land that year. The rot had, in fact, started much earlier, during the Clinton adminstration. It was only with hindsight that I eventually realized this. After all, only a nation of TV-addicted mushheads could discount the bombshell that was Gennifer Flowers.
Mr. Obama ran his first term as a somewhat accountable politico, although there were signs of what was in the works that the usual asleep-at-the-wheels electorate failed to notice, or failed to care about. To use just one example, his fellow Democrats in Congress began to complain that he wasn't engaged enough with them, that he showed no desire to roll up his sleeves and engage in politics. Bill Clinton talked, held discussions, scrapped with the opposition, made deals, the whole lot, to get things accomplished. From the beginning, Obama was spookily disengaged from the whole process.
In his second term, Obama not only totally unleashed his pit-bull attorney general Eric Holder, he blamed Republicans for a government shutdown—during a time when John Bonehead ... er, Boehner, showed something resembling a spine (an illusion, obviously)—blamed TWPs (Typical White People) for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and "Big" Mike Brown, picked up the pace of covering up Benghazi and Fast & Furious, supported the so-called Arab Spring, better known as the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and used executive orders to launch not only wars on Libya, Syria and ISIS-controlled Iraq, but to enact the full-scale invasion of the United States by illegal aliens through a concept that liberals adore: amnesty.
We now have a president that will not, in any conceivable way, protect our borders. Muslim terrorists can stroll in. Central American "children" can skip in, bringing "Enterovirus"—otherwise known as polio—with them, not to mention MS-13 gang culture. And, now, the mother of all controversies: As Thomas Eric Duncan proved, Ebola victims are making it in with no questions being asked other than, "Have you got any tobacco or alcohol?"
Obama has given up on the job of POTUS. He's the Golfer-in-Chief.
For anyone paying attention, or not being brainwashed by the international liberal media elite, it seems foolish to ask me if I'm still homesick.
For all the bullshit that Prime Minister David Cameron may be full of, he is much more of a true leader of a nation than Barack Obama could ever hope to be. And for all its faults and its own political correctness—which, for instance, made the child grooming scandal in Rotherham possible—Britain is a place I absolutely prefer to stay put in.
Yes, the 2011 riots were frightening and indicates a serious problem with young people, especially minorities, in this country. But similar riots in France and Sweden during the past decade shows that at least we're not alone.
Over here, I don't have to watch some EBT layabout with an MS-13 tattoo at the checkout lane at the supermarket. I don't have to worry about polio starting to run rampant throughout U.K. schools, carried by Central American yout's with no right to be here, infecting my neighbors' children. God willing, I don't have to worry about Ebola as British immigration agents appear to be taking it seriously. Mr. Cameron doesn't constantly lecture me or any other denzien of Albion about race or how valuable Muslims are to our society.
Furthermore, if massacres like at Ford Hood or Moore, Oklahoma ever occur here, I can feel confident that they would be classified for what they are: terrorist incidents. Not "workplace violence." If some bitter Chechen immigrants bombed the London Marathon, I have enough faith in this country's leadership that it would be classified as TERRORISM. Not a "man-made disaster".
The difference between the way the U.K. and the U.S. want treat jihadists who so happen to be citizens of their respective nations that they travelled to Iraq or Syria from could not be starker. David Cameron has proposed to strip British ISIS fighters of their U.K. citizenship. Even though he might run into trouble with the usual suspects—human rights judges—he is trying his best, as the country's leader, to define what it means to be British and that it surely does not involve embracing terrorism.
Compare this with what FBI director James Comey said with regard to Americans who fought with ISIS returning to the homeland: "Ultimately, an American citizen, unless their passport's revoked, is entitled to come back. So, someone who's fought with ISIL, with an American passport wants to come back, we will track them very carefully." Let me parse this for you: So, someone with an American passport who has fought with ISIL will be let back into the country. They're entitled to it. God forbid we should strip an American of their U.S. citizenship for committing treason. But don't worry, we will monitor them.
Golly gee, isn't that enough to make the average American living in America feel safe? What more do you want, what more could you need? The FBI has assured us that those who feel that others should die for not worshipping the moon will be tracked. American citizenship is so sacrosanct, it can't possibly be taken away from anyone without their blessing!
I have to admit, this is consistent. If we're going to bestow American citizenship on millions of people who have done nothing for the country but break the law by sneaking in, then why take citizenship away from another class of criminals? Although I would argue that committing treason goes beyond mere criminality, that's just me. I'm just a native-born American citizen who believes in following the law (a strike against the illegals) and live-and-let-live (a strike against jihadists). What do I know?
The only laudable thing about contemporary American life is that guns are still available. People have been purchasing them in a veritable flurry, convinced that they will be necessary to ward off swarthy illegals or jihadists coming at them with a scimitar. More power to them. In Britain, we can't even have pepper spray.
However, if you do manage to combat your assailant in a way that guarantees no future recidivist activities on his part while on American soil, you will be hounded relentlessly by the media for shooting an aggrieved member of society, a valuable person we failed to understand and embrace because we are, y'know, racist. Just ask Mark Vaughan who equalized the "workplace violence" committed by Alton Nolen, a.k.a Jah'Keem Yisrael. (Strange name for an Islamofascist, isn't it? That's Isreal with a "y".)
My home country has a totally open southern border and a Federal Bureau of Investigation that has just given the green light for further terrorist atrocities in on American soil.
Now, seriously, ask me if I wish I was still living in the U.S., especially the "sanctuary state" of Massachusetts run by that Obama rumpswab Deval Patrick.
If you have even a half-decent working brain, you won't bother.
I'm in Great Britain, and I'm staying put.
I apologize in advance for the intemperate language, dear reader. Ben Affleck is a pussy. There, I said it.
The worst thing about being from Boston is knowing that this bozo hails from the same stomping ground. In case you missed it, Mssr. Affleck appeared on a recent episode of Bill Maher's "Real Time" program. Maher and his guest Sam Harris, the New Athiest author of the book Waking Up, were discussing the threat posed by radical Islamists and the varying degrees to which Muslims worldwide support, at least in theory, ideas anathema to the liberal Western way of life.
Affleck was incapable of distinguishing between the moderate Muslims which Mr. Harris correctly pointed out are the people in the Islamic world that we need to support and encourage with the hope that they, not the jihadists, Islamists or fundamentalists, become the face of Islam globally and the Islamofascists and those who agree with or remain silent on them.
Comparing Maher's and Harris's points to calling someone a "shifty Jew," Affleck threw a hissy fit. He spoke in a tone of voice that nearly reached the ultrasonic register. He addressed Mr. Harris with a combative, "So, are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?" (To which Harris replied, "I'm actually well-educated on this topic.") I wish Harris had shot back, "Are you, Ben?"
At one point, while former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele spoke, Affleck can be seen rubbing his temples and running a finger across his stubbly upper lip. You would have a hard time arguing that he didn't look like a schoolboy who'd just been admonished by his teacher. Poor little mite was just so distressed. All this Islamophobia emanating from his fellow progressives! Oh me, oh my!
Bill Maher may be a punk—that will never change if his disparaging comments about the Boston bombing are any indication—but at least he gets it with regard to the threat posed by radical Islam. He is not like other Lefties in denying it. He does not think that Christians are the monsters. There are far worse liberals in the media than Bill Maher.
That said, you still have to be pretty damn far to the Left to disagree with him from a liberal point of view. Affleck doesn't want to hear that there are bad Muslims in the world—that, out of the four concentric circles of Islamic belief and practice that Mr. Harris explained, only one represents the reformers, the good Muslims. It's just so discriminatory!
Ben Affleck, you are a disgrace. But, though I disown you as a fellow Beantowner, the difference between a Westerner like me, who agrees with and will defend basic liberal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the majority of the practitioners of "the doctrine of Islam" is this: I don't want to kill you. I'm happy for you to be alive, to wake up each morning to a brand new day (which is more than can be said for animals you shoot on some of these mornings).
However, this is a point I don't expect you to comprehend.
There is a saying: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". I wonder if that observation will ring true given the announced resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.
It is difficult to imagine a worse attorney general than Holder. It is noted in a BBC news piece that Obama "praised his prosecution of terrorism suspects and his protection of voting rights".
Let's break this down, shall we? (Especially since "breakin' it down" is a favorite pasttime of "Holder's people"):
● Prosecution of terror suspects:
Holder opposed waterboarding which has been proven to be a very effective but non-life-threatening way to obtain information from suspects, wanted to give Guantanamo suspects federal civilian trials in New York, and supported the exchange of five "high-risk" Guantanamo inmates for Sargeant Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter "who cost soldiers' lives" according to fellow soldiers.
● Protection of voting rights:
Holder did not prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008. When questioned about this during a House appropriations subcommittee hearing, Holder said that the threatening of white voters at the polling station did not compare to "what people endured in the South in the '60s" and that making a big deal out of it disgraced the legacy of the "people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people".
My people. Can you imagine a white assistant to the assistant to the sheriff of East Bumhump saying this sort of thing, never mind a white attorney general? And, regarding the South in the 1960s, Mr. Holder? You weren't there. You were attending junior high and high school in New York City while the struggle for equality raged in Alabama and Mississippi. Yet, he talked as if he personally witnessed one moment of it for himself. But then, that's the sort of honesty and "transparency" we have come to expect from Obama and Company.
Like nearly everything else in this squalid executive office, ultimately, it was all about race. Holder treated both the Zimmerman case and the incident in Ferguson, Missouri with such compelling intensity and urgency that it was almost like Alger Hiss redux. Yet what everyone knows but won't say is that if Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown had been shot by another black person, officer or not, neither case would have come close to garnering national attention.
Then we have the infamous 2009/10 Fast and Furious fiasco, in which the ATF in Arizona oversaw a sting operation to sell firearms to Mexican drug cartel leaders in the hopes that it would lead to their arrests but has, if you'll pardon the expression, backfired. Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release Department of Justice documents related to the operation. Fortunately, a U.S. District Court judge has recently denied further executive privilege to continue stonewalling on the release of a list of Fast and Furious documents, so we will eventually get to the truth. Some pundits have theorized that Holder is getting out while the gettin' is good.
Holder will also be remembered for increasing the levels and powers of the surveillance state. Under his tenure, the National Security Agency has analyzed and stored an increasing collection of the public's electronic communications—thank you for blowing the whistle, Edward Snowden—while the Internal Revenue Service subjected conservative groups to stringent, over-the-top scrutiny.
Can Holder's replacement be any worse? I cannot imagine how the Attorney General's office could get any lower, but the Obama administration, as with life, knows no limits on levels with which to free-fall. The point-of-view of whomever occupies the position is not likely to change. Sources say that possible replacements include a Hispanic (to assist with enacting amnesty for illegals), a woman (to fight the "war on women") and an openly gay U.S. attorney (a gift to the LGBT community who idolize Holder).
I am gladdened by Holder's departure and the door can't swing shut on him fast enough for me. I also know that conservatives, including myself, will not be happy with whoever ends up in the AG's chair. That would be expecting the impossible. I just pray that Holder's legacy will not prove to be lightweight compared to that of his successor.
Recently, according to accusations, a 15-year-old boy torched the Manchester Dogs' Home, a canine rehoming charity. Over 50 dogs died as a consequence of the blaze. It is thought that the teenager committed this act of arson because he was previously bitten by a dog.
Some locals risked their lives in saving some of the animals. Area residents Jason Dyer and Dean Rostock charged into the burning kennel, sparing 20 dogs from death.
In the wake of the fire, the boy, who was later bailed after his arrest, was the recipient of many angry missives, including death threats. One Twitter user wrote that the adolescent arsonist "doesn't deserve protection. He deserves a very painful punishment".
Does that go a little too far, dear reader? Yes, he is fifteen and perhaps he can be rehabilitated, if he did cause the fire.
But, if it was him, then this was an act of pure evil. Please don't give me this "he only killed some dogs" claptrap.
Here's the kicker: Would this kid torch an old-age home if he clashed with a senior citizen? You have to wonder.
Psychopaths and animal cruelty are definitively linked. Time and time again, killers from Ian Brady to the Boston Strangler, Dunblane shooter Thomas Hamilton to Mary Bell, have displayed cruelty to animals as children. Prison cells in every nation contain murderers who worked their bloodlust out on animals first.
Dr Alan R. Felthous, Professor and Director of Forensic Psychiatry at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, held studies in the 1980s that demonstrated a strong link between animal cruelty early in life to aggression against humans later on. The result of Felthous's study "showed that those men with a high rate of recurrent and serious aggression had histories of a larger number of episodes of animal cruelty in childhood in comparison with those who were non-aggressive, based on independent ratings."
The public felt intense sadness, anger and disgust at the death of innocent pets by a deliberate act of destruction. The outpouring of support for the dogs' home was so large that police were reportedly overwhelmed by it.
It makes the threatening messages aimed at the boy easier to understand, doesn't it? We know where this might lead. On a certain level, the abuse the boy has been receiving can be seen a subconscious way of protecting ourselves from a possibly deranged individual who could become the next Raul Moat, a crazed killer.
Although the family of the teenaged boy initially refused to move, they were eventually convinced by police to be rehoused. Is there going to be a thorough psychiatric evalution of this kid with the police involved every step of the way? Or is he just going to serve a little time in a juvenile detention home and walk back out into the world with a new identity?
Are we going to heed the danger signals, the same ones that have been a constant for the whole of human history? Or are we just going to say that he paid the price and leave him to possibly slaughter an innocent person in the future?
If this kid eventually goes beserk (again), we can't say we weren't warned.
But, then, we never seem to learn from history, do we?
If you think the United States faces an illegal alien crisis and has trouble controlling its borders—which, I think we can say without the slightest hint of conjecture, it does—just know that the situation in Britain is often not much better.
It's not bad enough that the U.K. has to accept a certain number of migrants, set by Brussels and not Westminster, from every single new addition to the European Community, which now includes Bulgaria and Romania, which in turn constitutes the rich (but unsavory) strain of Roma communities that run throughout the populations of both countries. We also have potential migrants from elsewhere lining up along the northern shore of France, the city of Calais in particular, looking to sneak into the U.K. any way they can.
Earlier this month, up to one-hundred migrants attempted to rush aboard a P&O tourist ferry that was preparing to return to England. They had jumped barbed wire barriers and outfoxed security to get to the ferry boarding area. The illegals were only successfully turned away when water cannons were fired at them.
This rabble consists of the usual suspects: Middle Easterners and Africans. All men. All between 18 and 45 years old.
A truck driver who was interviewed said that he sees "migrants all grouped together trying to get on to the trucks" every time he's in Calais.
Just as with the U.S., the U.K. is seen as a soft touch which is why so many migrants don't want to stay in France, or go elsewhere like Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Sweden. In Britain, they know they can tap into an easily abused welfare system and work in the black market that flourishes here.
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart has threatened the British with a total blockade of the city's port if the country does not help to control the situation, which she has described as "unmanageable". She has every right to do this if the government will not act on this crisis.
* * *
It would appear that the Labour party has either learned nothing from its last time in charge of the country or it does not care. It has moved further Left from its policies—or at least the policies it trotted out for the public's perusal—under Tony Blair, a process started by Gordon Brown and now endorsed by Ed Miliband.
Stating that Britain remains obsessed with class, and promotes people on that basis, shadow equalities minister—drink that one in, dear reader, equalities minister—Gloria De Piero cited an "inequality of opportunity" that is set into the framework of many professions and she wants to "smash the glass ceiling" that exists in British workplace environments.
What De Piero is proposing is that public sector organizations will be required to monitor the social backgrounds of staff members.
Referring to what it means to be Labour, De Piero noted, "We believe all of us have the right to live in dignity, free from discrimination". Except, of course, if you're middle class. Then all your dignity can be chucked out the window.
Unfortunately, this is not just one moonbat speaking. Alan Milburn, the social mobility adviser—drink that one in, dear ... aw, fuck it—endorses a policy by which companies will have to declare the social background of their workforces.
Has this party truly learned nothing about the unfairness of affirmative action, or "positive discrimination" as they call it here?
I suppose they would say it was "for the children".
* * *
Speaking of Labour—and it would be unfair to attribute this sort of imprudence solely to them as loose screws who have earned their places in the annals of dumb-assery also exist among the Tories and Lib Dems—let me introduce you to candidate for MP Vicki Kirby.
On her Twitter account, Kirby referred to Israel as "evil" and said that the "Zionist God" might be Adolf Hitler.
Kirby wrote that, in her version of history, Israel was "invented" when saving Jews from Hitler, who "seems to be their teacher". Also, she "will make sure my kids teach their children how evil Israel is".
Labour leader Ed Miliband, a man of Jewish heritage himself, responded to this bile, declaring that "we do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel" through a boycott of Israeli products which Kirby supports.
Labour has suspended her, nulling her campaign.
Not to be outdone by Kirby, another Labour candidate, Jed Sullivan, wrote on Twitter that he was all in favor of adoption by gays, adding that gay fathers would "know where all the best parks are". He also opined that women missed International Women's Day because "they took too long to get ready."
Probably not the best idea to post jokes like these, which admittedly are funny as long as you're not a politically correct robot, if you're running for a seat in the Commons. Sullivan has since apologized for causing any offense.
* * *
But, lo and behold, it's not all insensitivity and anti-Semitism in this news smörgåsbord. Manchester police have collaborated with the Community Security Trust, an organization which looks after the Jewish community in Britain, to protect Jewish citizens attending synagogue and events over the High Holy Days, including Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and the Jewish New Year.
Mobile police stations will be set up at four locations throughout the Greater Manchester area with additional patrols to cover routes to and from synagogues.
The Greater Manchester area has seen a spike in anti-Semitic incidents, mostly whipped up by the furor of rabble-rousers protesting violence in Gaza. These "protestors" have made such a nuisance of themselves, day after day after day, that Manchester City Council had to declare an end to their demonstrations on King Street and reign them in, limiting their scope for subsequent protests. (I know, it's hard to believe that Gaza demonstrators don't have jobs to attend on a daily basis, eh?)
The Community Security Trust has released figures showing 52 anti-Semitic attacks across the Manchester metropolitan region in July. This constitutes a 300 percent rise on July 2013 when 13 incidents were recorded. There were 96 incidents in the whole of the previous six months.
It is definitely encouraging that the police are working to help secure a safe environment for the Jewish community. Given the contemporary political and social environment in which it seems that only Muslims get all the comforts and conveniences, it is refreshing that something is being done for another religious and cultural group of citizens.
We need more of this and on a much more frequent scale. Nonetheless, this is a good starting point.
So, dear reader, was the Scottish vote rejecting total independence from the United Kingdom a disaster or a relief? I harbor no doubts whatsoever that it's the latter.
What you need to know, before any other argument you care to put forth, is that a "yes" vote would have given power to a mega-socialist, Putin-admiring, anti-American bully. His name is Alex Salmond, who was the First Minister for Scotland—until, to give him a gentleman's credit, he resigned following the No campaign's victory.
Scotland has its own cabinet and its own government. It won devolved powers via referendum in 1997, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, courtesy of Tony Blair's Labour government. Current Prime Minister David Cameron has said that, in the wake of the independence referendum, more powers, including tax decisions, will be handed to Scotland.
The United Kingdom isn't broken. It works fine as it is. Think of the separate countries of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England as separate states. But they are all part of the larger whole known as Great Britain. In this day and age, does it make sense to break up a major Western power? That's what the success of a "yes" vote would have done.
I am not an apologist for past British Empire wrongs, especially with regard to Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain now; there can be no going back. You cannot force British families living there, whose ancestry in that area goes back centuries, to be paid in euros when they're happy with the pound. You cannot force them into the Irish health care system when they're satisfied with the NHS.
Salmond's far-Left style does appeal to Celtic peoples for who-knows-what reasons. Scotland is no different than Wales—or the IRA—in embracing radical politics. (They make great conservatives when they emigrate to America, though, especially the Irish.) Perhaps if they stopped painting themselves as victims of an imperialist state, the revolutionary politics they embrace would melt away.
An independent Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, would have been antagonistic toward America. Salmond's government let Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi be free to return to Libya in August 2009, citing his terminal illness as an excuse. He lived for three years after being set free.
Salmond praises Putin as a great leader and refuses to apologize for this admiration for the Russian president. The Putin government was not only disappointed but furious that the No campaign succeeded. Salmond would have removed all nuclear missiles in Scotland, an end-game possibility that had the Russians salivating. Now that Scotland has voted to remain part of the U.K., the missiles will remain.
I'm fairly certain that if the Yes campaign had won, Alex Salmond would have soon patched up differences with Barack Obama, who encouraged a No vote. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Obama judged this one correctly. How long, though, would it have taken until Salmond and the Dear Leader coöperated and collaborated on ways to completely screw the American people and their way of life?
Believe me, these two would have seen eye-to-eye in no time.
An independent Scotland would have re-joined the EU as a separate nation and, once accepted, signed the Schengen agreement which allows for open borders between all European nations that are part of it. The UK is not a signatory to this agreement. Therefore, England would have had to build a fence all along its border with Scotland to prevent all the swarthy ruffians that Salmond would have welcomed with open arms from leaking into its territory. As if the UK doesn't currently have enough problems with immigration.
Futhermore, they let 16- and 17-year-olds vote. That was an obvious move to try to fluff up a victory in favor of independence. Letting under-18s vote, uninformed, misinformed and ill-informed as they usually are, was a cynical way of propping up the Yes campaign. They knew only too well that people that young could be manipulated into embracing independence because they would not think about the deeper issues.
For my American readers, don't be fooled into thinking that just because America broke away from Great Britain that any attempt by another entity to do so is reason to blindly embrace it. It is not. You need to research the people behind such an attempt, their political persuasion, the cynicism with which they are operating their campaign and whether or not it will benefit the U.S. if their secession is successful. It also helps if you know whether or not the independence campaign is being spearheaded by a tin-pot dictator à la Alex Salmond.
I suggest that the British Government wait 20 or 30 years and then allow another independence referendum in Scotland. This time, let the Scottish government give its people a solid plan for independence instead of operating it like Obamacare, in the style of "just vote for it now, and we'll figure out the details later". See if the young 'uns who voted "yes" now still feel the same then. And hold the campaign like most normal countries do and allow only 18s-and-over to vote. At least then we can say the campaign was truly fair and the people of Scotland knew what they were voting for.
The nightdragon congratulates the people of Scotland for seeing through the manipulations and desperate shenanigans of the Yes campaign and voting by a majority of 55.3 percent against it.
Since my "comeback" to this blog, you may be wondering the following: Do the Nightdragon and his good lady wife still keep rats?
We do, in fact.
This is our youngest girl (out of three) called Gwen.
I will share pictures of our other rat-girls Crunchie and Twix later. But, for now, enjoy Gwen's slow moves to some chill music:
Exactly seven years ago—and when I say exactly, I mean to the day—I wrote: "Anyone who knows just the most rudimentary aspects about life in contemporary Britain knows that we—the Government, businesses, and most of the British citizenry brow-beaten by political correctness—bend over backwards to avoid offending our Muslim community."
Nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed since then.
Take the case of Lauren Chase of Birchgrove, Wales who left comments on the Facebook page of a "little Egyptian rat" she did not like. Chase insinuated that he had snuck into the U.K. in the back of a delivery truck and opined to him that she did not like Muslims or their religion. The receiver of these comments told authorities he felt that because of his "ethnic appearance," he had been targeted.
Now then, Chase certainly needs to know that it is not proper behavior to target people based only on appearances and to abuse them. A work order of one week would have sufficed.
However, Chase was punished with a 12-month community order with supervision, an 80-hour unpaid work scheme that she must complete and the attendance of a ten-session racism and equality programme.
Got that? For daring to use free speech in a manner that is offensive to a protected class of people, whose contributions to Western society are dubious to begin with, this young lady was slapped with a year-long community order, in which she must be supervised. She must do eighty hours of unpaid work. And attend ten—count 'em, ten—classes on learning to celebrate diversity.
How much do you wish to bet that anyone who has recently called a white person a "honky" or "kaffir" will be present during these sessions?
Lauren Chase, the court heard, was suffering from depression and getting her help for it "is certainly on the agenda," according defender Matt Henson. Two thoughts here: If she is depressed, then how is this stringent punishment she received at the hands of the state going to help? And if a young person who is a Muslim or some other disadvantaged type that we strive so hard to protect from the realities of life, which can include white people as long as they're inbred and brainless, stabs an innocent person, then claims depression? I guarantee you that a little slap on the wrist, like a worthless ASBO, will be all they will face. No supervision. No 80-hour work order. No semester-long series of classes preaching tolerance. Certainly no jail time.
Now consider this entry, written slightly over seven years ago, in which I wrote: "The government is so afraid of the big bad Islamic bogeyman that if a Muslim complains about a cartoon pig or the swirl of a Burger King ice cream looking like the word 'Allah' written in the Arabic alphabet, immediate action is taken."
Recently, an outstanding member of our society, one Zayn Sheikh, called for the very popular British cartoon "Peppa Pig" to stop being aired on television. Not only does the sight of happy animated pigs offend Muslim sensitivites, but according to Sheikh, his young son has gone from wanting to be a doctor to wanting to be a pig.
You can't make this stuff up.
Zayn Sheikh and his defenders wish that British television would air enriching cartoons such as "Abdullah the Cat". According to a poster on the "Muslims Against Peppa Pig" Facebook page, Abdullah is "the halal cat". Huh? Does that mean Abdullah's body if used as meat—to perhaps feed a hungry jihadist—is halal or the food Abdullah eats is halal? I'm confused.
It's funny how Jewish citizens, who are also not allowed to eat or touch pork, never opine on the harmful effects of pigs in children's cartoons. Maybe it's because they realize they have far more important things to worry about in their lives. (Namely, increasing anti-Semitism from the Muslim community and their Lefty supporters, whipped up by anti-Israel protests, but that's an entire entry by itself.)
Lastly, in evidence of what is known to all those with a brain and who use it concerning the disrespect with which Christians are treated day in and day out, Cumbria County Council ordered Peter Nelson to take down a 9-foot tall crucifix he placed on the local slag banks of Workington. The crucifix is in memory of his deceased wife Angela.
A council spokesman said that, although the authority sympathizes with Mr. Nelson (yep, mmm-hmmm, sure ...), the crucifix "does not have planning permission and we have asked him to take it down".
Refreshingly, 2,000 signatures have been lodged with the council in protest and several dozens of local people marched with Mr. Nelson in support of him and his cause. Craig Elliott, a friend of Mr. Nelson's, said that the crucifix won't "be taken down without a fight."
So, for the million-dollar question: How seriously do you believe the council would have anything to say if some local Muslim erected a minaret on Worthington's slag heap?
For a Christian like Peter Nelson, the case is clear: "You did not seek planning permission, rules must be obeyed, we sympathize but you cannot be allowed to do this." For a Muslim, the policy would instantly have been "turn a blind eye." Nothing to see here, folks, move along ...
That's because the practitioners of "the religion of peace" are a protected class, you see.
Seven years from now, I fully expect, they still will be.
Before I delve into this, I need you to keep in mind, dear reader, that French fries are known as "chips" in Britain. This word survives in this sense in American English in the phrase "fish and chips".
Now then, one popular electrical kitchen item in many British homes is something called the chip pan. You pour oil into it, plug it in and fry your potato sticks or wedges up in that. Sounds safe, right? As you have already guessed, they are notorious for catching fire as a result of all the oil that is involved with using them.
It also doesn't help that many people, who are on the idiotic side of the spectrum, use their chip pans after a night out and addled with intoxicants. As soon as they get in the door at 4 a.m., they think the following:
In the campiest English accent I am capable of:
"Ooh, time for some chips. That would be just lovely. Some nice, lovely chips coming up."
After firing up the chip pan, you can almost guarantee an individual like this will crash on their living room sofa, intending to wait for the oil to get hot, and become absorbed in their text messages or a repeat of "The X Factor" or whatever vacuous garbage passes for "entertainment" these days. It is just a matter of a very short time till this person, along with several unlucky neighbors, will be made homeless once the oil goes beyond being hot, if you get my drift.
Chairman of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority David Acton said, in the wake of two serious local home chip fires in the space of one day, "Chip pans are dangerous and we want people to get rid of them and use safer alternatives like oven chips instead." The Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service notes that "chip pans can be extremely dangerous" and "are the cause of the largest number of fire-related injuries in the home." [Emphasis mine.]
So, chip pans are pretty bad and really shouldn't even be offered on the market. I am not a big fan of the ban, but this is one exception I'd consider, especially as these devices are responsible for causing most fires in the average home.
The unelected oligarchs of the European Union have declared war on powerful electrical appliances. A ban on vacuum cleaners with motors of 1,600 watts or over went into effect last week. The aim is to make only vacuums with just 900-watt motors available by 2016. Not satisfied with this, a whole range of other high-power electricals including tea kettles, hairdryers and lawnmowers will be banned and replaced by lower-wattage versions.
How this makes sense when people will be using these appliances for longer in order to get their carpet clean or hair dry or water to boil has not been explained.
Also, is anyone — aside from those who honestly believe the Obama adminstration is committed to defeating ISIS — stupid enough to believe that these privileged politcos will abide by the same diktats they handed down to us?
Seriously, go into European Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker's home in 2016, and I guarantee you'll find not just one but several 1,600-watt vacuum cleaners. Hypocrisy, it's elemental, dear Watson/reader.
Chip pans, however, do not appear to be on the list of appliances targeted by the EU. It's fine to allow people to endanger their lives and possibly those of others by using these little fire-starters.
The EU needs to learn that the point behind a ban on things, if considered, usually evolves from the desire to save lives, not power. The purchase of a 1,600-watt vacuum cleaner to adequately clean one's floors is a free market choice. Having to flee your residence because your jackass of a neighbor viewed his kitchen as his personal fast-food establishment while high is a choice no-one would make.
I am not suprised that the EU lacks the libertarian élan to know the difference.
Remember when Obama attained the highest office in the land in 2008, and was reëlected in 2012, all the talking points of light said that the U.S. had now gained favor with the rest of the world? Now that progressives controlled Congress and the Messiah was in the Oval Office, we would be the world's darlings.
Still with me?
How then, perchance, that a letter-to-the-editor such as the following could be published during this administration's tenure?
Successive UK Governments and their relationship with the US, reminds one of those creeps in the playground who stick with the school bully, fawn and flatter to keep themselves onside. New British PMs cannot fly to the White House quickly enough to get on their knees and pledge allegiance to their masters and pledge the lives of working-class youth as cannon-fodder.
With all in Washington rolling helplessly about the floor with laughter, those idiots in Westminster call this "the special relationship."
Mao-tse Tung hit the nail on the head when he said that Britain was America's running dog.
Can the sanguine writer of this charming missive still be blaming Bush? Just asking.
Since I've been gone for well over a year, there is some subject matter catch-up I'd like to engage in. So, let's shake off the cobwebs ...
1. The Murietta protests and the alien invasion:
Early in July, hundreds of protestors of this southern California town blocked a main access road on which buses full of illegal alien women and children were travelling, forcing the vehicles to turn around and drop the illegals off in a Border Patrol compound in San Diego County. They managed this not just once, but on two separate occasions.
Murietta mayor Alan Long had urged residents to take action. Speaking of behalf of the town's population, Mr. Long said, "Murietta expects our government to enforce our laws, including the deportation of illegal immigrants caught crossing our borders, not disperse them into our local communities."
Sounds logical, doesn't it? Except for the phrase "illegal immigrant," which is an oxymoron. There is only one type of immigrant: legal. Illegals are aliens, they do not belong. They are also criminals, even if they are not MS-13 gangsters.
President Barry O. is determined to change the face of this country through his complicit participation in this invasion. For the moment, we can only try to fend off the onslaught.
A massive rally held by talk-show host Jeff Kuhner in Boston earlier this month in effect cancelled Governor Deval Patrick's plan to take in thousands of these migrant "children" and house them in facilities in Chicopee and Bourne.
These Minutemen-like protestors are heroes. But do not expect them to be regarded as such by the media and the White House. That's par for the course, though. We know that decent American citizens will always be demonized and law-breakers placed on a pedestal. In the name of diversity and compassion, you understand.
The importance of the coming mid-term elections cannot be overstated. Honestly, if Americans do not wake the hell up and flood both houses of Congress with Republicans, we will end up with the third-world, Spanish-speaking, terrorist-sheltering banana republic with which Obama is so keen to saddle us.
2. The 'Big Four' firms oppose democracy protests in Hong Kong:
In Britain, there are four major accountancy firms: PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. In late June, the Hong Kong affiliates of these four competing firms united as one to release advertisements denouncing pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong.
At this time, a large protest known as the Occupy Central with Love and Peace was poised to shut down the business district of Hong Kong. The "big four" firms feared this would cause investors to flee the city and that it would disrupt the "rule of law".
I'm no hippy and I'm all for capitalism. But, honestly? Business is more important than a people's right to democracy? The people of Hong Kong have every right to let their feelings be known in the post-colonial climate they find themselves in, subject to China's whims.
Legal professionals in Hong Kong were especially within their rights to protest given Beijing's announcement that a basic requirement for those in the judiciary was to "love the country". Whatever that means to the Mao disciples in charge of the land.
Shame on the "Big Four". Their actions amounted to a travesty.
3. HS2 1, Homeowners 0:
In Britain (there's that phrase again), there is a transportation infrastructure project in the works known as "High Speed 2" or HS2. According to reports, homeowners living within 300 meters (nearly 1,000 feet) could receive compensation as little as £7,500 under a scheme announced by the Government.
Those opposed to HS2 assert that the compensation scheme is "derisory," and assert that hundreds of thousands of homes within one kilometer (roughly two-thirds of a mile) of the planned track will receive no compensation for the blight.
Hilary Wharf of HS2 Action Alliance opined that these homeowners will be "locked into homes made unsaleable" by the project.
It will tear up thousands of yards of forest — as if this country isn't short enough on woodland — and displace people in villages such as Little Missenden in Buckinghamshire.
But, for me, this speaks to a larger issue: that of displacement. It's an age-old story. "We're going to make life so much easier for everyone," some planning committee will tell local residents. "But, in order to do that, you must move."
We saw the great effects that had on the community life of the West End of Boston after the construction of the Central Artery in the '50s. Aside from Massachusetts General Hospital, there was nothing there! Renewal of the neighborhood could only begin once it was torn down. The North End suffered too, having been separated by the massive fly-over from the rest of Boston.
Up until 1973, Neptune Road in the East End was a flourishing working-class residential street. Massport, the agency in charge of Logan International Airport, tore up the local Wood Island Park in 1967 and then started buying up homes along Neptune Road in order to demolish them six years later. This occurred as the airport grew in size and expanded.
Today, Neptune Road remains but it's as if an H-bomb had exploded there. There is nothing. It is the same for all surrounding neighborhood streets to the east of Route 1A around the Wood Island subway stop. Frankfort Street, Vienna Street, Lovell Street ... asphalt paths through a great deal of nothingness.
I watched a documentary a few years ago on the community of Deptford in south-east London as part of a BBC Series called The Secret History of our Streets. It demonstrates how Deptford was practically destroyed by urban planners.
The effort to clear "confusing" streets free of "slums", and shuffle everyone out of their homes and into nearby, newly built tower blocks was, according to the narration, "a vast, Modernist socialist experiment to be carried out in the working class East and South." Gee, ain't that grand? Ritzy West London, of course, was untouched. No plebs there.
People were displaced, good neighbors separated forever, the marketplaces that were their livelihoods dismantled. In the name of progress. The programme made it clear that, as with the Neptune Road area of Boston, modern Deptford, hardly a showcase today, is practically unrecognizable with nothing holding it together.
All this leads me to the overall point: Progress is all very well, but does it always have to come at the expense of ordinary people? You do not tear up communities unless it's comprised of squatters or a terrorist cell. Working, tax-paying citizens should not have to suffer indiginities at the hands of planning committees and their corporate kick-backs simply because it might be good for their children.
How do the children living on Neptune Road in 1973 feel about that one, I wonder? They watched what their parents went through, lost friends and probably still nurse grudges against Massport. I don't blame them.
