Wednesday - December 30, 2009

Response to the European Union’s Statement on the Death Penalty in the USA.

Dear BMEWS,
You well know how much I LOVE the effin EU.  Hang on every word and wish em all the very best. (of bad luck) I keep referring to them as stupid but in actual fact, they’re not really all that stupid. Yeah, maybe a little.  At least the ones on the left (which is most) are.  But they’re crafty and sneaky and well financed etc.  They’re also self serving but that isn’t any surprise. That’s also human nature.

Europe has it’s share of problems to be sure.  They have drugs and crime and immigration problems and all the other crap we have. Oh yeah, and a lot more muzzies then we do in the states. Oh boy, do they have problems of their own. But God bless the bastards.  With all of their very own problems, isn’t it wonderfully Christian and considerate of the pukes to try and guide us and help us along the road to their socialism.  Isn’t it great that the EU will take time out of it’s busy and bloated schedule to try and influence how America should face it’s internal affairs?  Gee, I was soooooo thrilled and overcome when I found this in my American Embassy newsletter last week.  Gives one that warm atomic feeling that makes ya just glow.

RAT BASTARDS!

17 December 2009

U.S. Response to European Union’s Statement on Death Penalty

Capital punishment in United States does not violate any OSCE commitments

United States Mission to the OSCE
Response to the European Union’s Statement on the Death Penalty
As delivered by Acting Deputy Chief of Mission Casey Christensen
to the Permanent Council, Vienna
December 17, 2009

We want to thank the European Union for its expression of concern regarding the death penalty in the United States.

The use of the death penalty in the United States is a decision of democratically elected governments at the federal and individual State levels and is not prohibited by international law. Capital punishment does not violate any OSCE commitments. The people of the United States, acting through their freely elected representatives, have chosen, in most States, not to abolish the death penalty.

The U.S. judicial system provides exhaustive protections to ensure that the death penalty is not applied in an extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary manner. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that capital punishment itself does not violate the U.S. Constitution. However, capital punishment may only be carried out subject to the extensive due process and equal protection requirements and after exhaustive appeals.

Regarding the case noted by the European Union, we would like to point out that Mr. Bordelon had freely confessed to the rape and murder of his twelve-year old stepdaughter and has waived his right to all mandatory appeals. We will ensure that the appropriate authorities in the State of Louisiana be informed of the EU statement about his case.

Madame Chairwoman, the issue of the imposition of the death penalty continues to be the subject of vigorous and open discussion among the American people.

Posted by peiper     on 12/30/2009 at 09:03 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • EUro-peons • International •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 29, 2009

Sorry not to join the liberal wailing: heroin traffickers deserve to die.

GOOD for China!  Bravo.

Yes. I do understand that many BMEWS readers are not exactly China boosters. But I am tired of the liberal left and all the hand wringers claiming that EVERYONE who does bad things from running drugs to street thug killings are “suffering” from some sort of mental illness.

Lets take this jerk who happily has breathed his last in China.  Right away the call went out.  Spare the poor man.  He has a history of mental illness.
Oh fuckin yeah?  He managed to father several kids and was traveling under his own power.  If he was so ill that he could not be responsible for his actions, what the hell was he doing flying everywhere on his own?  I’m tired of excuses, excuses.  I am also VERY tired of the moralizing and the criticism of states with the death penalty by OUTSIDERS.

Then we heard that Britain wanted the poor guy spared cos not only was he a mental case but .... He was we are told, a Brit.
Oh fuckin yeah?  Well he was living in Poland or have I been misinformed?

Leo McKinstry is 100% correct.  The west can not point fingers at China or anyone else while our own house is buried in filth.  Ok, he didn’t say exactly that. What he said is:

My regret is not over tough action by Beijing, but the fact that we in this country do not possess the moral clarity or strength of purpose to deal ruthlessly with drug peddlers and other enemies of our society.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Labour government, the human rights brigade and celebrity loudmouths to lecture China when Britain’s own strategy has failed so disastrously.

He said a hell of lot more and was correct in all particulars.  Normally on a long editorial, I only post part of them and leave the link for anyone who wants the entire thing.  But today, here is the whole editorial.  It’s worth reading every single word.  Even if you don’t like everything he says, everything he says is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

But FIRST .........

Naturally enough here is what the weak minded screwball who is the Brit PM said.

Gordon Brown leads furious outcry as China executes British drugs mule by lethal injection

Gordon Brown condemns execution in ‘strongest terms’

Oh woo hoo Mr Brown.  You stupid shit.  Who are you to tell China what to do?  What?  There aren’t any serious problems here in your own falling apart country?  And it gets worse.  I know it isn’t scientific but a Daily Mail poll so far shows 59% of their readership agree with their bassackwards PM.
Shows ya the mindset that has taken hold here.  Ten years of Liebour (as Lyndon calls it). That’s a generation steeped in the liberal left wing fold.

But not all.

Sorry not to join the liberal wailing: heroin traffickers deserve to die

By Leo Mckinstry
Last updated at 2:03 PM on 29th December 2009

This morning, barring an unlikely last-minute reprieve, convicted drug smuggler Akmal Shaikh was executed by firing squad, having been found guilty of trying to bring 4kg of heroin into China.

His case has prompted outrage in this country from politicians and from the trendy metropolitan elite, for whom drug use is a fashionable habit rather than serious criminal offence.

Yet for all this orchestrated wailing, is it not possible that China is right to put Shaikh to death?

Indeed, I would argue that Britain’s enfeebled, self-destructive approach to narcotics has been graphically highlighted by China’s ruthlessness in tackling drug pushers.

In contrast to New Labour’s policy of appeasement and surrender, the Chinese Government acts vigorously to defend its people from the misery caused by the drugs trade.

My regret is not over tough action by Beijing, but the fact that we in this country do not possess the moral clarity or strength of purpose to deal ruthlessly with drug peddlers and other enemies of our society.

A bankrupt with a chequered financial history, a tangled personal life, and an obsession with easy money, Shaikh was arrested with heroin worth a cool £250,000 in his suitcase.

As the Chinese police point out, this is a big enough amount to have killed 27,000 people.

In China, the death penalty can be invoked against anyone carrying more than 50g of drugs - and that is one obvious reason why China, proportionally, has nothing like the drugs problem that we have in Britain.

Serious dealers and abusers know they could be looking down the barrel of a gun if they are caught.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Labour government, the human rights brigade and celebrity loudmouths to lecture China when Britain’s own strategy has failed so disastrously.

A country that reveres such junkies as Kate Moss has no right to lecture China on its drugs policy, argues Leo McKinstry

Thanks to the climate of institutionalised leniency, our society is awash with drugs, bringing widespread crime, violence and family breakdown in their wake.

Dealers and users conduct their business knowing they have absolutely nothing to fear from our courts. Far from condemning cannabis and cocaine, our achingly liberal youth culture glamorises their possession.

Vacuous supermodel Kate Moss was caught using cocaine by undercover reporters, most of the fashion world rallied behind her with a sense of moral indignation, protecting her lucrative contracts and behaving as though she were a victim.

In showbusiness circles there was speculation for a long time that cocaine was not Kate’s only drug of choice - that she had also smoked heroin and crack cocaine.

Nor has Moss’s former boyfriend, musician Pete Doherty, ever received a meaningful sentence, despite repeated convictions for misuse and other criminal behaviour.

In 2007, for instance, he was spared jail over a string of offences and was even allowed by Judge Jane McIvor, who claimed to be a fan of his music, to delay a court hearing.

Similarly, drug-addled singers Amy Winehouse and George Michael have been lionised by the music establishment.

British officialdom now adopts a simpering indulgence towards drug abuse. Politicians line up to boast how much cannabis they smoked in their youth and downgrade the criminal classification of substances.

Instead of locking up offenders, the Government wastes a fortune of taxpayers’ money on non-judgmental propaganda like the useless television adverts from the £2.2million Frank campaign.

Public funds are lavished on rehabilitation schemes, all of which have failed to prevent a dramatic rise in abuse.

Unlike China with its firing squads, the only ‘shooting galleries’ we have in Britain are state-run needle exchanges for junkies.

Outrageously, self-inflicted drug addiction is now regarded by the welfare state as a disability, entitling claimants to generous payouts of at least £110 a week. In effect, the Government requires taxpayers to subsidise criminal drug habits. It’s estimated no fewer than 267,000 serious drug users live on social security.

In contrast to China, our criminal justice system no longer treats offending seriously. Criminals walk free, community punishments are meaningless, jail sentences, even for murder, are derisory.

Ordinary citizens are constantly bullied through a plethora of bureaucratic regulations, yet violence, burglary, theft and drug abuse carry no consequences.

One key factor behind modern Britain’s reluctance to uphold the law is the belief that criminals are really victims of society, motivated only by social disadvantage or mental health problems and that they need support not punishment.

We can see this clearly in the case of Akmal Shaikh. Campaigners on his behalf claim he was suffering from mental illness at the time of his visit to China and so should be let off.

Such excuse-making is absurd. His record of infidelity, sexual harassment and dubious business conduct suggest he was amoral, selfish, and irresponsible.

He was once fined £10,000 for hounding a woman he had recruited as his secretary, while it is telling that his former first wife refused to join the campaign for a reprieve.

The hysteria over Shaikh’s death penalty echoes the preposterous outcry in 2002 over another British man who was executed by a foreign government.

A career thug, drug addict and alcoholic, Tracy Housel was put to death by the U.S. state of Georgia for raping and killing a woman, Jeanne Drew, whose body was so badly battered she could be identified only by dental records.

Once again, there were the interventions by the Labour Government. Once again, there were the claims of mental illness, with Housel said to be suffering from brain damage and hypoglycaemia, though this hardly explained his record of extreme violence.

Once again there was the tenuous nature of the defendant’s links with Britain, which hardly justified the energy the Government spent on his case. Housel, born in Bermuda, had never actually set foot in this country.

Similarly Shaikh, born in Pakistan, spent much of his adult life in the U.S. and Poland before going on his criminal odyssey to China. Neither of these men could demonstrate any real commitment or connection to Britain.

The British government, with its prattle about human rights, likes to think a refusal to use capital punishment is a badge of a civilised society. The truth is the willingness to execute dangerous criminals is a sign of compassion. It means a government is determined to protect the vulnerable and maintain morality.

It is no coincidence Britain was at its most peaceful and crime-free in the Forties and Fifties, when we still had the death penalty.

‘The gentleness of English civilisation is its most marked characteristic,’ wrote George Orwell during the war, a remark that seems laughable now, though we think of ourselves morally superior.

Between 1950 and 1957, the number of murders in Britain never rose above 180. The annual average in recent years is over 900.

Overall crime has also shot up since we abolished capital punishment. Since the Fifties, the number of recorded crimes has increased more than tenfold, up from 438,000 in 1955 to 4.8 million in 2008.

This is because the removal of the death penalty has had a downward ratchet effect.

Since murderers could no longer be hanged, sentences for all other crimes had to be lowered commensurately. The result is the near-anarchy we see today, where serial offenders continually escape custody and rates of violent crime soar.

There is nothing barbaric about the death penalty. The real barbarism lies in refusing to punish criminals.

The drug-fuelled, crime-ridden, welfare-dependent, fear-filled inner city housing estate in modern Britain is far more savage than any place of execution in China for a trafficker of human misery.

SOURCE

PS BMEWS.  With regard to my rants on govts. sticking their unwanted noses in the business of other countries. Will shortly share something from my American Embassy newsletter.  You will recall no doubt since I’m always on about it, my concerns about the EU putting in their 2 cents worth about internal American affairs.  Well, the bastards have.  In a case back home where some slime ball is to be erased soon, the eu had decided that it somehow is also their business too.

Hey ... to ALL of the left wing socialist hand wringing fat cats who are sitting members of the eu governing body and all other libtard Eu MPs.


FUCK YOU!

Posted by peiper     on 12/29/2009 at 09:29 AM   
Filed Under: • CHINA in the news • Crime • Editorials •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 28, 2009

Detroit terror attack: Academic liberalism is a danger to life, says The Telegraph. ( But? )

The news occupying us today as it did yesterday, is all about the miserable excuse for something human that tried to blow up a plane over Detroit.

Naturally enough, ALL the newspapers here have been running the story the past two days.  Complete with the basics of how bombs are made.  Sure, they leave out exactly how to put one together.  What I’m saying of course is that “in the public interest” they are still damn well graphic in the presentation.  I don’t believe it serves any purpose except to instruct these sub humans on ways to improve their performance.

All the papers are running editorials on the subject.  Of course they are.  But it just seems to me that even this paper whose editorial I post here, appears to my minds eye as backing off just a little with their use of words. You’ll see what I mean in a moment as you read below.

Telegraph View: Over the past decade, institutes of higher education in London have consistently provided sanctuary for Islamist students who parrot the hate-filled rhetoric of al-Qaeda and its allies.

28 Dec 2009

Many of our readers will spend today squashed into airport queues slowed to a snail’s pace by extra security measures. It will be a teeth-grindingly boring ordeal. But it will not be terrifying, unlike the experience of looking up from your in-flight movie to see flames bursting out of the leg of a passenger who is trying to murder you. On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab very nearly managed to blow up a transatlantic airliner over Detroit. The authorities at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport allowed Abdul Mutallab to carry his syringe, liquid and powder on board. Suddenly, all that fuss about a thimbleful of perfume does not seem over the top.

For passengers wondering why, yet again, the journey from check-in to departure lounge is a taste of hell on earth, the answer is straightforward. Religious terrorists are plotting to inflict on us a permanent state of earthly hell: airliners dropping from the skies, dirty bombs in shopping malls and cities, all leading to an Islamic caliphate whose totalitarian writ would run from Mecca to Milton Keynes. Was it coincidence that the attack took place on December 25? Of course not: this was an attempt to destroy the peaceful feast day of a Christian religion that the bomber despises.

The British public is not so stupid as to think that most Muslims approve of Islamist terrorism: of course they do not.

Oh yeah? Prove it!  Not that the public is stupid. But that “most” muslims do not approve.  The way the paper puts it here, anyone who suspects most if not all muzzies are stupid. Fine. Just fine. So I’m stupid.  The fact remains that until PROMPTED after things happened here, there weren’t many (the odd one or two) muslims in the streets or making public statements condemning terror tactics.  There was instead overwhelming silence.  There was never any ground swell of opinion from that group of mostly very unwelcome permanent residents.  There was instead a comment here and there about how unfortunate and that they did not approve of terror and killing innocents BUT .... well, we should understand what motivates these unfortunate young people to take up terrorism.  They may be wrong but the west drove them to it.  If “most” do not approve, then they turn a blind eye to it.
Meanwhile, the terrorists have accomplished another thing with this recent attempt.  Air travel is becoming increasingly stressful and time consuming.
The news here also is that on future flight, NO ONE will be allowed to use the bathroom in the final hour of flight.  While I understand the reasoning, I have to ask.  What do folks with bladder problems do?  Or anyone for that matter with a genuine need?  Suffer I guess.  This is what these dark age mindless bastards have brought on us. 
Btw .... how come the passengers on that flight didn’t break any bones or beat the hell out of him?

Moreover, although Muslims in opinion polls frequently express a preference for living in an Islamic state,

Then WTF are the shits doing here?  Why don’t they go live in an islamic state?  BENEFITS, anyone?

only a small percentage share the jihadist fanaticism that inspired the airline bomber. Yet the awkward fact remains: of that percentage, a worrying number have lived in Britain and especially London. Some have studied at our universities: Abdul Mutallab graduated in mechanical engineering from University College London in 2008.

Over the past decade, institutes of higher education in London have consistently provided sanctuary for Islamist students who parrot the hate-filled rhetoric of al-Qaeda and its allies. Again and again, speakers have been invited and rooms provided so that, in the name of free speech, vulnerable students can be indoctrinated. Some of those students may now be sitting in caves in Waziristan or cafés in the Yemen devising methods of killing Westerners. Perhaps they picked up their expertise in a British university laboratory. We may never know until it is too late.

What we do know is that our security forces have consulted vice-chancellors in order to impress upon them the urgency of the threat. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. Liberal British academics, along with their friends in the media and public sector, have a habit of diverting any discussion of terrorism away from Islamism towards the evils of Anglo-American foreign policy. By doing so they are less likely to offend students from developing countries whose delicate sensibilities seem to matter more than security. Perhaps some of those academics are stuck in airport queues today. If so, we must hope that it finally dawns on them that, irrespective of the complex causes of terrorism, their politically correct indulgence of Islamic radicals is making life more dangerous for all of us.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 12/28/2009 at 09:28 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • DIVERSITY BS • Editorials • RoPMA • Terrorists • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 22, 2009

Tiz the season to be giving?  What have politicians done for them? Zilch.

Ran across this a few days ago, found it quite interesting and thought our readers might too.

Nothing to add from me so posting without comment.

From The Times
December 19, 2009

In the 50 years since I was in Malawi as a young boy, life in most African villages has not changed in the slightest

Matthew Parris

Before leaving Britain for Central Africa earlier this month, I saw the news that Gordon Brown was to place on the table at Copenhagen more than £1 billion in British aid to developing countries, to help them to combat climate change. The offer sounded generous. But could we, I wondered, ever really monitor how the money was spent? Could we micromanage its distribution? Alternatively, could we trust recipient governments to spend it for us?
In Malawi’s capital, Lilongwe, where I landed three days ago, I passed a prominent sign on the outskirts of the city, notifying the public of the offices to which a driveway led. It read: “Capacity-building for non-government actors.”
“What does that mean?” I said to my companion, a well-educated Malawian woman with fluent English.
“We don’t know,” she said. “We’ve been trying to find out. We think it might be something to do with training for charity workers.” She paused, then added, half to herself: “They are talking to themselves.”

They are trying to say training for charity workers without using the words training, charity or workers.
I find myself making an unexpected connection between that exchange with my Malawian companion and an earlier conversation she had had with our Malawian driver.
“I say!” he had called to her, to gain her attention. The rest of their conversation was conducted in their shared language of Chichewa, but “I say!” had caught my ear.
I’ve heard it used in Malawi before and since. It means almost what it used to when employed by the officer class in Britain: something between “Look here”, “Do I have your attention?” and “Gosh”. It has almost certainly came into the local idiom via our colonial officers in the days when Malawi was the British Protectorate of Nyasaland.

My uncle was a forestry officer in the central region of the country, and to stay with him one Christmas I travelled on my own by train (a great three-day adventure) from what was then Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), via Mozambique, 50 years ago. Now I am back here in the sub-Sahara: a subcontinent I know well. This time I’m travelling under my own steam, with friends, in true rural Africa, a land I love.

Malawi is a friendly, safe and gentle country, welcoming to strangers, and not by African standards notably inefficient or corrupt. But what strikes me most — more than any of the changes I see in the cities — is how little has changed in the lives of the vast majority of the people of Africa, who live on the land. Fifty years ago “I say” had entered the lingo, and if overseas aid remains centre-stage here for much longer, perhaps “capacity-building” may pop up in the Chichewa language too, as part of the idiom, along with a new political language of Africanisation that independence has brought. All else remains the same.

During the half-century in which Harold Macmillan’s winds of change have blown themselves — in political terms — into a gale, half a century in which revolutions both violent and peaceful have thrown off the yoke of six great European empires and all the colours of the countries on the map have changed, half a century of tremendous political struggle, half a century about which it would be possible to fill a whole library with works of political science describing, analysing and disputing the processes of imperialism, decolonisation and liberation ... during the half-century between what I saw when I was 10 and what I see now at 60, life in the average African rural village is unaltered.

As a little boy I spent a week alone with my young brother staying in a remote village in Mashonaland in Rhodesia. My mother had organised this through an African friend, believing her children should know how other people live. That was 1959. This week I returned to a small village near Lake Malawi, where I went last November to write (for The Times Christmas Appeal) about the work of a small British charity. I am not exaggerating when I say, without qualification, that nothing — nothing — has changed for better or worse or at all, in village life. You could rewind the video 50 years and you would not spot a single feature that placed us in 2009 rather than 1959 — none, that is, except the lines of my face. Oh, there is, perhaps, one: the new pumps we were installing are of a more primitive design than the 19th-century style lever-pumps that used to be installed in colonial days, as these often proved too complicated to maintain in remote areas in Africa.

I do not, from this, conclude that colonialism was good, or that African independence has been bad. No, they have both proved largely irrelevant, hardly scratching the surface.
When we British marvel at how so small a nation managed to govern so much of so large a continent, with so few colonial officers on the ground, we overlook the fact that we weren’t really governing at all. We were just there. We were marching around, building and mending a few (rather bad) roads, policing (after a fashion) with the help of tribal chiefs and elders, and generally flying the flag. And on the whole, and for some time, the locals couldn’t be bothered to remove us.

Modern African governments in most African cities — so far as their rural hinterlands are concerned — are just there too: strutting around a bit too; mending a few bridges; sticking up signs announcing plans and schemes; jetting off around the world (as our Colonial Service sailed or flew back and forth) and suppressing opposition as our colonial predecessors did. Primary education has spread, but most rural children never go on to secondary school, and if they did there would be no jobs for them. Infant mortality remains, as it always was, unbelievably high.

From this we should perhaps draw no conclusion at all: for or against Africa. We should instead observe that in large parts of the world, and for billions more of our fellow human beings than it suits us political obsessives to acknowledge, politics hardly matters.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 12/22/2009 at 11:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Africa • Editorials •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - December 18, 2009

Rocket science factoid … England is an island. It’s a small country and a population less then USA

Amazing that. Who’d have guessed?

This is not a continent with a population in the hundreds of millions. However, it seems that nobody has shared that info with the pie in the sky prime minister,
Gordon Brown.  Who in a magnanimous gesture has just pledged an extra £6 billion to fight climate change. (what happened to warming?)

Where the hell is all this cash coming from?  I guess he’s gonna print more and get it from the same place he got the trillion to bail out the banks.

It has been promised at that meeting in Denmark, from which there seems to be an odd smelling odor, I think there’s something rotten there, that billions must be given to turd world countries to offset the effects of climate change and to help them as they are poor.  And guess what.  Some spokesman for Africa has already said that it won’t be enough.
No kidding but no surprise.

I’ve been listening to the radio again. Yeah I know.  That or the papers. I need to give one up as it’s all causing an ulcer.

Oh yeah ... America can be proud. Hilary has pledged US backing for a $100bn fund.

This country is in deep financial trouble.  These things do manage to right themselves after a time but how long is now the question.
Services are being cut and the govt. claims to be looking for ways to save. BUT ... MPs (Member of Parliament) have been found even AFTER the scandal of expenses to be, “CARRY ON CHEATING.” Not only that, a large group of MPs ( I think the number may be 81) have refused to return monies they took claiming a right to same.  It’s getting so that one doesn’t know who to believe anymore.  While I hope Labour is voted out, I am not certain the conservatives will do a heck of a lot better.  OK, maybe a little better.  But so many of them seem to be Cons in name only.  Gets a bit daunting.

On climate change this govt. is committed (they say) to leading the world in the saving of itself.  Oh great. Who the hell is gonna save England while all this noble nonsense is happening? 

On another politically correct front, the govt. wants to force tobacco companies into giving up the use of company logos on ciggy packs.  Not enough that packs already carry huge black lettering saying THIS PRODUCT KILLS.  What makes em think logos like the Lucky Strike target being banned, will cause ppl to quit or not start? 

It’s really difficult remaining positive folks.  Here’s an example of how well things are working here.  Wife found this letter in the Times today. Unbelievable.

Sir, In keeping with the time of year, I recently ordered my diaries for 2010. When, after several weeks, they had not arrived, I contacted the company to establish the cause of the delay. I was informed that the courier had been unable to find my place of work.

Given that the distribution centre is located in Scotland, I cannot be sure if this is a symptom of cartographical ignorance, failed GPS technology, or perhaps, devolution?

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
House of Lords (large building by River Thames with big clock tower)

Jeeze people .... The freekin House of Lords?  Clock tower?  as in BIG FREEKIN BEN?  THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT?  THE FRACKEN SEAT OF GOVT.?
The courier couldn’t find that? 

It goes on and on.

The fresh injection of British taxpayers’ cash will be part of a $100billion (£67billion) a year fund which was backed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday.

In what was seen as a major development, Mrs Clinton said: ‘We have come to Copenhagen ready to take the steps necessary to achieve a comprehensive and an operational new agreement.’

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said the fund would require ‘around £1billion a year from Britain’.
He added: ‘Some of that money comes from overseas aid, some will come out of revenue but this is absolutely in the UK’s economic - as well as environmental - interest.’

Britain is expected to ramp up its contribution to the global fund for poor countries from £500million a year in 2012 to the £1billion target by 2020, landing taxpayers with a bill for £ 6billion in additional aid over the period.
That is on top of £1.5billion the UK has already pledged for developing countries. But Mr Brown says the financial outlay is essential to maintain progress. After talks with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao he suggested China was prepared to allow more checks on its carbon emissions.

Mr Brown yesterday pledged an extra £6billion to persuade developing countries to sign up to a deal.
As the Prime Minister prepared to sip champagne over dinner with Robert Mugabe and more than 100 other world leaders, he told reporters that ‘the conditions for an agreement are now there’.

He effectively committed Britain to handing over billions more in ‘additional’ money in an attempt to win over poorer countries who say current proposals are unfair.

Mr Brown has already offered to cut Britain’s carbon emissions by 42 per cent, the highest proportion of any country and ten times the best deal put forward by the U.S.A. - raising the prospect of higher fuel prices and a wave of green taxes.
His latest offer will fuel concerns that Mr Brown is making a disproportionately generous offer on Britain’s behalf in a desperate attempt to secure his place in history.

MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 12/18/2009 at 10:21 AM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Editorials • Environment • UK • USA •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - December 17, 2009

UK CARTOONS …

Cartoonists view of things from here, no comments from me except to say that the last one is a favorite.

take a look.

Based on what I’m reading, seems there’s a bit less of that now, and that’s among his supporters.

Now this one wins First Prize. What’s the west gonna do about this guy? Does it need to do anything? What and when? Specially when.

Source is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

Posted by peiper     on 12/17/2009 at 12:11 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Miscellaneous • UK • USA • War On Terror •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 16, 2009

Who will go in to bat for crime’s victims?  A question from a liberal?  Yup. Wonder of wonde

You may recall a story I posted yesterday, with some anger as usual, about a homeowner sent to jail after braining a gremlin who with others, broke into his home, tied up the family, threatened to kill them and then proceeded to rob them.  Homeowner chases gang, he and brother catch one and wack him with a cricket bat.  Idiot judge says he went beyond self defense once he chased the bad guys away. 

So I was reading The Times today which has the reputation of being liberal altho more and more some of their correspondents seems to be taking a somewhat conservative approach to things.  I am referring to the Times of London.  Not N.Y.
Well, what to my wandering eyes should appear, but an editorial comment from a liberal which reads as, well, reasonable.  Good gosh. Reasonable? From a liberal?  Could be.  You decide.  Although I do not agree that it may be “just” to jail anyone who beats up a burglar.  But the public sure does feel betrayed.

The majority of citizens in this country want the rope back.  Fat chance of that with the left in charge of everything.

It may be just to jail a man who beats up a burglar, but don’t be surprised if the public feel betrayed

Antonia Senior

Three masked men break into your home. They tie up your family and threaten to kill you and your children. They force you to crawl from room to room, as they rob you and ransack your house. You escape and find yourself in possession of a cricket bat. What would you do?

Munir Hussain, a businessman from High Wycombe, chased the burglars down the street with his brother, Tokeer. They caught the intruders and beat them. One, Walid Salem, was hit by a cricket bat with such ferocity that it broke in three pieces, and he was left with brain damage.

Justice was meted out. Then the law intervened. Hussain and his brother were sentenced to 30 and 39 months respectively for grievous bodily harm with intent. Salem escaped jail with a two-year supervision order. Salem, a career criminal, left hospital after two weeks, and was subsequently arrested for an alleged credit card fraud.

The law decided that it is one thing to strike when you are being struck; it is quite another to chase your attacker down the street and beat him senseless. Morally, as well as legally, the distinction looks clear. Hussein’s family were no longer in danger, and neither was he, when the cricket bat came down on Salem’s head. Justice must be measured by the thump of a gavel, not by the thwack of willow on skull.

So why, then, if law and morality agree, does this case cause such consternation?

A man we can identify with — a businessman, with a family life and no history of violence — is confronted by the criminals who stalk our middle-class nightmares. We all wonder what our reaction would be. We all know there are depths of our own soul we have never plumbed, and we are terrified and curious in equal measures.

We are attacked, and the first response is an extreme physiological reaction to our environment that cannot be faked. Charles Darwin, in describing the symptoms of fear, talks of the crouching, defensive- aggressive posture of the terrorised. Fear shakes us out of complacency; readies us for the fight. After the fear, sometimes, comes rage.

There is the absolute fear and incandescent rage of the victim, which can spill over into violence. But we all suffer from a low-level fear and a simmering rage that we are reminded of by this case. We are scared of career criminals like Salem; he is a modern bogeyman. The unfairness of his lenient sentence feeds our rage, as does the failure of the police to catch his accomplices.

But what do we do with this fear and rage? The first option is to think through the morality of vigilantism and conclude that, if a society has any aspirations to civility, the demands of the law must outweigh the desire for revenge. The second option is to think, screw the morality — Salem deserved it and Hussain is a hero.

The second option is the eye-for-eye, tit-for-tat logic that appeals to the supporters of capital punishment. It’s the old “How would you feel if your child was killed?” argument in favour of state-sponsored execution. It puts personal, individual instincts ahead of a sober, impersonal reflection on the State’s powers.

Public opinion is firmly in favour of capital punishment; a referendum would bring back the noose tomorrow. I would expect a similar public response to Hussain’s imprisonment. Put it to the public vote, just after X Factor or I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here! and Hussain would be free, while Salem would be subjected to a series of bushtucker-trial equivalents.

“Dial 03 now,” shouts the cheery presenter, “and watch this career criminal be hit for six! Dial 04, and watch him eat a kangaroo’s anus, to win four stars’ worth of public forgiveness.” The court of public opinion would act very differently to Reading Crown Court.

There is an increasing dissonance between the views of the majority and those of the minority who frame and police the laws. On crime and on immigration the gulf is at its widest. Many in the majority would be justified in believing themselves to be citizens, not of a democracy, but of a liberal oligarchy.

A small band of the liberal elite makes the laws, disputes them in court, writes about them in papers and chatters about them on the box. It makes me both relieved and squeamish — relieved that my nice, liberal view of the world prevails, and squeamish that its execution is so inherently illiberal and anti- democratic. It’s a “we know better” political philosophy whose only defence is a plaintive cry, “But we do!” What’s the logical, intellectual justification for our stranglehold on this democracy? There is none that I can think of; I’m just glad to be on the inside, looking out.

But those who disagree with us are, much to the bafflement of many liberals, not stupid. They recognise the gulf, and feel unrepresented, There is a belief that the criminal justice system and the police are not interested in the victims of crime.

This environment makes vigilantism more likely, not less.

If you work on the automatic assumption that the men who threatened your family will escape justice, how tempting to reach for the cricket bat. What would you do?

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 12/16/2009 at 11:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF • UK •  
• Comments (16) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - December 13, 2009

When tolerance is taken too far.  America … please note.  That ocean is not a barrier anymore.

I was gonna take a day off today, which will be explained in my following post.  Been a fraught 24 hours.
Saw this earlier today and thought it was something that needed to be shared, most especially with fellow Americans.
It may not be this exact way in the US at this moment.  But my feeling is it isn’t too far away.
Simply change wording and maybe substitute towns or cities in the US.

This is just another example of what’s wrong here and why many feel the place is doomed.

Telegraph View: Haringey Council seems determined to evade its responsibility to ensure that Muslims are integrated into British society

Telegraph View

One of the most pressing challenges for Britain – not just for the Government, but for the whole of our society – is to find a way to integrate fundamentalist Muslims: to ensure that they embrace the basic values of tolerance, equality of the sexes, and the primacy of secular democracy as a way of making law.

Haringey Council currently provides an object lesson in how not to meet that critical challenge. As this newspaper reported more than six weeks ago, a Muslim school there, run by individuals with links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, received £113,000 of taxpayers’ money last year. After our report, state funding was suspended. Now it has been resumed: an investigation by Haringey Council found “no evidence to suggest inappropriate content or influence at the school”.

One of the school’s three trustees is Farah Ahmed. She has refused to deny membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and has also written a pamphlet attacking the National Curriculum for “pushing the idea of religious tolerance”. In it, she insists that “attempts to integrate Muslim children” into secular society are an effort to “produce new generations that reject Islam”. She attacks English literature as “one of the most damaging subjects”, and says democracy is a “corrupt tradition” and Western education is “a threat” to Muslims’ “beliefs and values”.

If those attitudes do not count as “inappropriate content or influence” when it comes to state funding, it is hard to see what does. Yet Haringey seems determined to evade its responsibility to ensure that Muslims are integrated into British society. As does the Government: Ed Balls, the Children’s Minister, has backed the council. There could be no more effective way of ensuring that religious minorities remain dangerously excluded from mainstream society.

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

£113,000 of taxpayers’ money to dump on the host country.  And they put up with it. This is why islam will rule here one day.
The citizens don’t have guns. Bet ya the muzzies will when the time comes.

Posted by peiper     on 12/13/2009 at 09:42 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Editorials • RoPMA • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 07, 2009

A conservative (muslim) minister pleted with eggs replies …..

Well at least there’s ONE for certain and so maybe it means there’s a second one hiding someplace.  The cynic in me.  Actually, this lady isn’t bad at all.
I hope. I have heard her on the radio in interviews and in discussion on panel shows on BBC-4 (radio).

She makes herself a target I’m sure, of those who claim she isn’t, “muslim enough.”

I do NOT agree with her with regard to the Minaret issue however.  I don’t think she sees it through the eyes (AND EARS?) of the Swiss and Western ppl in general.  But then, why should she?  Nice as she is, and from things I have heard she is a good woman, she is not entirely, One of Us. She can be imposed on the Brits but not one of them in her soul.  She is also WRONG in her statement with regard to “DIVERSITY” here in the UK.
Sorry if I offend anyone but the truth of it is, like integration and forced (unfair) busing in the USA, diversity is something that has been grafted onto the Brit body politic.  It has been imposed (like this multi-culture crap) as surely as if this country had been invaded by an outside aggressor, and successfully so.

My week: Baroness Warsi
The Sunday Times

The shadow minister finds cheer for the Tories and moderate Muslims in the attack on her

PLAYGROUND BULLIES

I would not have chosen to start the week being pelted with eggs by Islamic extremists, as happened when I visited Luton on Monday. I was there to meet business people and support the local Tory candidates — but instead I encountered a bunch of idiots who screamed abuse at me, accusing me of not being a proper Muslim. They were like playground bullies. I invited them to calm down and engage in a civilised debate — a little optimistic given that there were eggs flying.

The last Tory to be pelted with eggs in Luton was John Major in 1992, and he went on to win the general election, so maybe it’s a good omen. I don’t take this sort of incident to heart; if I did that I wouldn’t be able to change anything. I’m a criminal defence lawyer from Yorkshire — it will take more than a few eggs to hold me back.

In fact, a surprising amount of good has come of it. I have been flooded with emails from Muslims around the country, expressing shame and revulsion at what happened. There has been an outpouring of condemnation. The vast majority of Muslims abhor this sort of behaviour — the response I’ve had shows that we are winning the battle for Islam’s soul.

The next battle is to improve the external image of Islam — and that’s much harder. Anti-Islamic sentiment is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in Britain. The media do not help — we only hear about the extremists and the idiots. People forget what a tiny minority they are.

BATTLING THE BNP

I felt well prepared to face the BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time, as he has a strong following in Yorkshire — but not enough for his party to pose any serious threat. He can’t get anywhere because he’s got no policies. He just taps into the latest “anti”. It was anti-Jewish, and anti-black, and now it’s anti-Muslim. I didn’t get a chance to meet him before or after the debate at the BBC — we were all put in separate rooms. I supposed they must have been frightened we wouldn’t get along.

MY DAUGHTER, THE SHEEP

I’ve been the subject of a lot of racial abuse in Britain. During the last general election, someone came to my doorstep and called me a Paki. I said: “Okay, now you’ve got that off your chest, let’s discuss what the Tories can do for you.”
It turned into a perfectly reasonable conversation.

Some people assume Muslims are ruled entirely by their faith. But I did not oppose the war in Iraq because I am a Muslim; I opposed it because I am a lawyer. And I don’t believe in lower taxation because I’m a Muslim — I believe in it because I’m a Conservative. And I do not think Christmas should be banned. Councils can ditch their fairy lights if they want to, but they are not doing it in my name. And I cannot think how any Muslim could take offence at a nativity play. I’ve been to dozens. My daughter always longed to play Mary, but she usually got cast as a sheep.

MINARET MADNESS

On Tuesday night I went to a party at Conservative Central Office to celebrate the festival of Eid. There was a recital from the Koran, and it was noticeable that Jesus and Moses were mentioned more times than Muhammad. People forget that the birth of Jesus is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith.
The protesters on Monday were understood to be members of the al-Muhajiroun group. I believe in free speech and the right to protest. But I think such organisations should be banned. They exist merely to cause trouble. They preach hatred and they believe in violence and aggression, so they don’t deserve a voice. The government has been too weak in dealing with extremists. Its policy is confused.

At least Britain is more grown-up in its attitude to diversity than countries such as Switzerland, which voted last week to ban the building of minarets. Minarets and church spires and synagogues can stand side by side in Britain; it is one of the beauties of our landscape.


FAMILY TIME

I always try to get back to my home in Yorkshire on Thursday, as I have five children aged between 10 and 18. My husband and I have large families, so when I’m in London an aunt or a grandparent takes charge. Weekends are devoted to the children — and the Christmas shopping is done online.

LINK TO SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 12/07/2009 at 09:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • RoPMA • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - December 04, 2009

A number of words about Switzerland from the Conservative Voice of Europe

I was led to this site via Europe News.
The guy writes exceptionally well BUT .... I know it’s a serious subject and I do find it interesting except it’s so darn long.  So I haven’t posted all of it here.  In fact, I can’t read all this at one sitting on line and am going to print it out. But what I have read is well worth my trouble.  I think you will be interested in what he has to say as well.

The site is The Brussels Journal, which calls itself the Conservative Voice of Europe.

BRUSSELS JOURNAL

SWITZERLAND: THE GOVERNMENT -VS- THE PEOPLE

Brussels Journal 3 December 2009
By George Handlery

George Handlery about the week that was. Even in small countries, major trends can unfold early. About noble leaders and their reluctant peons that refuse to follow.

International protest and its use to the tottering local leadership. Security, fear and freedom. Radicalization as a face saving device. Immigration then and now. Imported prejudices, failure and the allegation of discrimination.

1. Small country, major issue. Normally, Switzerland is not of much interest to the international reader. Already by standing falsely accused of having invented the cuckoo clock, she is automatically downgraded. The neglect can also be attributed to her size, a functioning system – a juicy crisis brings attention.

Not being on the map is also the consequence of her ability to keep out of armed conflicts. Switzerland did not even need to be liberated in WW2! Some myths shatter on Swiss reality.

Effective armed neutrality invalidates a peacenik thesis that arms lead to war. Per capita Tell’s land has a huge army – 600,000 in WW2 out of 4.5 million. Reflecting her industrialization and armament industry, it is largely self sufficient and excellently equipped to exploit the best defense positions nature can provide.

Complete the achievements with Switzerland‘s top rating regarding the quality of life and the top earned per capita GDP coupled to being a leading financial center. In the case of a landlocked and no-resources country, this should not be the case. Besides bank secrecy – which is a settled issue and gone by now – Switzerland is currently getting perplexed attention because of the consequence of her direct democracy.

On a regular basis, the unique system enables the people to perform executive functions. The voter can make laws and invalidate legislative action. Therefore, if you want to know what the “people” want, then you might find out by consulting the results of the numerous referendums and initiatives. The people’s uncensored voice expressing its real opinion is a good indicator of what comparable societies would say if they would be able to speak up.

The latest, and internationally widely commented, Swiss initiative forbade the erection of further minarets. Expressly not effected are existing structures and new temples as well as the exercise of any religion.

To the surprise of all, the initiative passed in what is rated here as a landslide. The decision went against the will of the executive, the legislature, all but one of the political parties, the churches, the economic and social elites, “business,” the media and, belatedly, the Vatican. Why “surprise”? Opinion surveys predicted rejection. That teaches us right away something about surveys in general.

People give PC responses to surveyors who are themselves PC. This is what makes surveys into useful weapons in the hands of those who can afford them. More important is another insight. It suggests that the governments, parliaments and the elites of western democracies might not quite express the will of those they claim to represent.

Additionally, thanks to the media control of the political class, real public opinion does not always equal what little people are made to think by pundits that have the power to determine what proper views must be.

Now, “the day after”, Europe’s governments and institutions condemn the vote’s result and the voters who “committed” the outrage. Amnesty International finds that the Swiss voted “against religious freedom”. “Scandalized” France’s Foreign Minister bemoans the same – while his government forbids burqas. Those veils express in textile what the minarets say in stone.

(Oddly, with eight times the population, France has 5 minarets and 500 mosques while Switzerland has four minarets.) Indeed, governments and the governing elite’s shock and outrage might have a simple reason. It flows not from principle but reflects interest. They attack the frightening precedent created by the Swiss because the political classes fear their own peoples. Just take a fresh opinion survey from Germany. There 70% (sound too high to the writer) of the “barefooted” would vote – if their system would let them – the way the Swiss have.

GOOD TO KNOW: THE FINAL CHAPTER IS NOT YET WRITTEN

The defeated leadership chides the voters about their mistake. In addition, the disavowed local political class tries to assert itself against its recalcitrant people. One way to do that is to encourage international pressure to demand that the new law not be implemented. The minaret-builders are not idle either. Emboldened by the angered local elite, they will ultimately turn to international courts – such as the one that forbade the display of crosses in Italian schools – demanding that religious freedom be protected. Naturally, that bold and principled pronouncement will limit itself to Switzerland as representing Europe. So as to avoid insult, the decision will ignore Middle Eastern states or Taliban ruled areas.

2. A sign of the times. A friend has submitted a letter to the editor. Without mentioning the minarets, the note raises questions regarding demonstrators that protested the vote’s result. He was advised that, in the interest of his own safety and the careers of his children (one is married to a Muslim), he should desist. While the fears moving him seem to be exaggerated, the man wrote to the paper requesting that his submission not be published.

It is not conceivable that, had he supported the after-the-fact demonstrations or “minarets for all”, anyone would have discovered a risk implied by turning to the Editor. The case suggests two points to be made here. 1. Without security there is no freedom. 2. Fear cancels out liberty.

Posted by peiper     on 12/04/2009 at 05:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Government • History • Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • International • Media-Bias • Politics • RoPMA •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - December 03, 2009

Home-grown terrorism: our values are not optional for minority groups.

I’ve had this for a number of days and finally getting it posted.  I know it’s a bit long but it really is worth your time reading it.

It would be better if we enforced Britain’s cultural values on immigrant communities, rather than allowing them to dictate government policy

By Janet Daley
Editorial
The Telegraph

How do you create a home-grown terrorist? For a while, Britain seemed to hold the copyright on the formula for this. First, you import a huge number of people from places where there are unresolved historical conflicts, with no stipulation that they learn anything about their adopted homeland (not even its language). Then you make no attempt to integrate these groups – which are large enough to constitute self-sustaining communities – into the culture and political traditions of the country that is now their home, nor do you advise the schools to inculcate any sense of pride or pleasure in the new national identity to which they are entitled. Indeed, you do precisely the opposite of this: you positively encourage not only the incomers themselves but their British-born children to maintain a separate, inward-looking ethnic community that stands apart from the mainstream life of the society and whose values may conflict with it.

So eager are you to show that you accept other cultures whose attitudes and assumptions (on, for example, the treatment of women) are opposed to the official values of your society, that you benevolently overlook what is being taught in their schools even when those schools are being supported by government funding. When your Government is caught in the act of having provided such funding, as happened last week with schools in Slough and Haringey, both of which had a history of links with the Muslim extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, the ensuing row is on purely technical points: which school officials held, or were connected to people who held, actual positions in the organisation on what dates? The question of whether schools with an explicitly separatist ethos should qualify as providing acceptable basic education is not even addressed.

So there it is: an instant recipe for estrangement and alienation that can turn (or be turned), in susceptible personalities under the right circumstances, into terrorist fodder. Until recently, as I say, we led the world in this particular specialism: the United States in particular was inclined to believe that the phenomenon of the native (as opposed to foreign) terrorist was a peculiarly British problem, which is why it introduced additional security measures to apply to visa‑waiver UK passport holders.

But the US, having been confident that it was a country that knew what was required for the successful absorption of immigrant groups, has now produced a home-grown terrorist of its own, and the controversy that this event has inspired is not irrelevant to our debate (to the extent that we are permitted to have one) in Britain.

When the Muslim American Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, he did not just murder his military colleagues: he killed the American illusion that “it couldn’t happen here”. And he unleashed an argument not just on practical topics such as racial profiling but on the much wider question of how much America’s foreign policy decisions – how it should conduct itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example – should be influenced by the feelings of minority groups within the US itself.

This dispute revolves around the personality of Major Hasan: was he just an unbalanced individual for whom Islamic fundamentalism was nothing more than a delusional pretext for a psychotic break? This account has gained favour in Left‑wing American circles for fairly obvious reasons: it allows Islamic fundamentalism to become simply an unwitting accomplice to the act, rather than its actual cause, and the act itself to be seen as a random, unreasoning crime rather than a terrorist attack. No big national problem here: just a nutter whose instability should have been spotted sooner but whose religious-cum-political “motives” can be ignored.

According to commentators on the Right, such as Charles Krauthammer, this thesis is a pernicious attempt to “medicalise” Major Hasan’s crime in the interests of avoiding any implication that there was a meaningful connection between his Islamic religious beliefs and his act. By defining the act as literally meaningless (insane), defenders of the liberal orthodoxy are not taxed by the problem of how to deal with a possibly murderous minority within their own country.

The Left-liberal camp is now in the rather uncomfortable position of holding two contradictory interpretations of Major Hasan’s actions. There is the one that Mr Krauthammer describes: this incident is a one-off act of lunacy, so the fact that Hasan was a Muslim is of no importance (even if he thinks it was – after all, he is insane).

But the other argument made by the Left puts Hasan’s religion at the centre of his action: Muslims, even ones born and bred in the US, are being driven to violence by American foreign policy. It is the perceived American assault on Islamic peoples and countries that is responsible for pushing borderline personalities – who have been made susceptible by their cultural introversion – into extreme associations. So the conclusion is roughly this: the only possible way to avoid radicalising any more vulnerable, borderline psychotics who happen to be Muslims is to change our foreign policy so as not to inflame their hyperactive sensitivities.

Quite apart from the question of whether any ethnic group should be allowed to dictate government policy under the threat of violence, isn’t there a bizarre precedent here? Suppose an element within the animal rights lobby were to engage in a programme of major urban terrorism and threaten to persist until the consumption of meat was banned. Would we seriously entertain the idea that to continue to sell meat was an inexcusable provocation to a dangerous, unstable minority? And can there be any certainty about the causes of such provocation among Muslims? The grievances of Palestinians are the most frequently cited source of global Islamic anger, but most of the Pakistani recruits to Islamic fundamentalism in Britain have closer links with the Kashmiri cause than to any problems in Gaza. Add to this that a good few of those convicted of terrorist acts have been converts (such as Richard Reid, the shoe bomber) who had no inherited ties to any Muslim country.

What a miasma of moral confusion we are succumbing to – all for the sake of avoiding a question that must be asked: how does a liberal society cope with a minority in whose name acts of violence are carried out in its midst? Surely the answer must involve a much more muscular liberalism: a robust belief in the values that permit people of different beliefs to live together peaceably and an unapologetic determination to enforce those values in every quarter of the

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2009 at 09:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Homeland-Security • RoPMA • UK • USA •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 23, 2009

A reply to Argentium G. Tiger and Drew

This came up in my previous post Et Tu? Warner Bros?

Tiger, as far as I know, you have the right to do whatever you want to a DVD that you purchase, as long as you aren’t selling (or even giving away, perhaps) the end product that you have created. Sounds like you’re making a backup copy of the data with some extra editing. I don’t see a problem

So says Drew. Frankly, I agree with him. But is it legal? Here’s the FBI Anti-Piracy Warning:

Please note the phrase ‘infringement without monetary gain’.

Granted, the likelihood of you getting caught making ‘backup copies’ of dvds that you own is low. However, the dvd in question is a rental from Netflix. I do not own it. So it would be most inappropriate for me to do anything resembling what Tiger suggested.

Personally, as for Tiger mentioning what software he uses, I’d have said nyet. Those who want to skirt copyright laws should do what I and presumably Tiger have done: your own research. Quietly and privately.

BTW, none of Tiger’s software work for Macs.

Greyjohn: ‘Sufferin’ Succotash’ was the trademark of Snagglepuss, a Hanna-Barbera character, not a Warner Bros/Looney Tunes character. Last time I rented a Hanna-Barbera cartoon dvd (Snagglepus, Yogi Bear, Boo Boo, etc) it was interesting for a completely different reason:

The Hanna-Barbera cartoons included the commercials. Yogi Bear was extolling the virtues of Post Honey Comb cereal, among other things.

Posted by Christopher     on 11/23/2009 at 08:37 PM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Editorials • History •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 22, 2009

Et tu? Warner Bros?

Just how far is political correctness going to go? Now it’s infesting the Looney Tunes gang!

I found that Netflix has the ‘Golden Age of Looney Tunes’ on dvd. The cartoons I grew up watching on Saturday mornings: Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, well, you get the picture. Good, clean, violent, fun stuff suitable for children from the 1940s on…

…until now apparently.

I settled down last night to watch the latest dvd, Looney Tunes Vol 4 Disc 1. Here’s what I was forced to watch—Forced! Mind you. I couldn’t fast-forward past it.

The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros. view of today’s society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.

Now, this opens up a huge can of cats. (What? You think putting worms back in the can is hard? Try putting cats back in the can. They bite, claw, and scratch. And run faster than worms.)

There’s no mention of what ethnic or racial prejudices are depicted. No mention of which were ‘wrong then and are wrong now?’ No mention of who decided they were wrong? Or why?

I believe this opening statement is placed so as to sensitize the viewer to be offended. Or feel guilty.

By the Three Kennedys! They attack not just any children’s cartoons, WB attacks their own children’s cartoons.

Meanwhile, I’m still watching the dvd. I’ve yet to be offended.

Imagine, I go to the bookstore and buy a copy of, say, Huckleberry Finn. Actually, I have a copy of Huckleberry Finn. No such warnings appear in it.

And, imagine if such a statement were included in the preface of each copy of the Koran published in these United States? Would there be an uproar?

Posted by Christopher     on 11/22/2009 at 05:18 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Insanity • Politically-Incorrect •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 16, 2009

AN EDITORIAL COMMENT BY THE MAIL , on paying killer immigrants to go home.

Perhaps I should have posted this first and then the following article. No matter.  This editorial says it all far better then I could and is well worth reading. 

This grotesque bribe sums up 38 years of folly

By Mail On Sunday Comment

What an unhinged world we live in, where actions that would normally seem ridiculous are the only sensible solution to a problem.

The British Government has ‘bribed’ a particularly nasty convicted child-killer to forgo her legal right to appeal against her immediate expulsion from the country.

Many would say that the use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money for such a cynical purpose is wrong and that the killer should be bundled straight from prison to the nearest international airport and frogmarched on to the cheapest flight home that can be found.

That would be justice, as many of us understand it and would like to see it done. But such justice is not available in modern Britain.

The Ministers and officials involved in this scheme plead that they must choose between two unpleasant possibilities. We can house and feed this felon while she drags out a lengthy series of appeals. Or we can pay her a lump sum to go away and never come back.

In this case, the apparently ludicrous decision to offer her money for ‘reintegration’ makes a rather strange sort of sense.

Our resentment should be directed against the many parliaments and governments that have passed the ten or more Acts of Parliament, going back to 1971, that created these circumstances in the first place. These are the laws under which people who should not be here manage to delay or prevent their lawful removal.

Some were introduced for reasons of short-term expediency. Some originate in a deep desire to turn this country into a multicultural society. Some arise from a Utopian desire for ‘freedom of movement’.

Most reflect the modern obsession with recently invented Human Rights. Thanks to these influences, successive governments have forgotten their duty to guard the national borders.

Now we see, in this grotesque handout, the indefensible but inevitable result of this folly.

Every successful human society has flourished behind well-defended borders. In an unequal world, you cannot have liberty, prosperity, a compassionate welfare state and the rule of law, unless you restrict access to them.

Those who have repeatedly made this simple point have for years been disdained and ignored by the new Establishment, who have claimed to be the ‘civilised’ side of the debate.

Now we see where their ‘civilisation’ has got us.

EDITORIAL SOURCE, SUNDAY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 11/16/2009 at 05:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner