skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
