Monday - February 18, 2008

ISLAM IS TAKING OVER, says Dutch politician

Islam is taking over, says Dutch politician

By Bruno Waterfield in The Hague
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 02/03/2007

An anti-immigrant politician is making a meteoric rise with his call on the Dutch - once one of the most tolerant nations in the world - to stop Islam taking over Europe.

Geert Wilders, the 43-year-old leader of the Freedom Party, is convinced that governments are being forced to accommodate a ‘tsunami of Islamisation’ that is fundamentally incompatible with European social values.

“Islam itself is the problem. Islam is a violent religion,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “The Prophet Mohammed was a violent man. The Koran is mostly a violent book. We should invest in Muslim people but they have to first get rid of half the Koran and half of their beliefs,” he said.

The Freedom Party has jumped from six to 10 per cent in opinion polls since November. His passionate campaign for a ban on the Islamic veil, or burqa, in public places is gaining such momentum that the country’s new coalition government could be forced to introduce the ban it does not support.

On the burqa, Mr Wilders is adamant: “It is a medieval token of a barbaric time, of how not to treat women, even if they want to wear it themselves,” he argues.

Allowing Muslims to wear the burqa in the Netherlands, or to have segregated swimming sessions so as not to offend religious sensitivities, amounts to “religious apartheid” he says.

The new government coalition of mainstream centre right and left political parties had planned to ditch a decision by the previous government to ban the burqa in the Netherlands which now has a population of one million Muslims, six per cent of the total population. But, Mr Wilders crows, weekend opinion polls show 66 per cent of Dutch citizens support a ban.

The minority opposition leader who has won two previous votes for a ban on the burqa is convinced that support will be there for new legislation he will table in the spring as the Dutch become increasingly concerned over Muslim separatism.

Wilders is convinced there is growing support for his views across Europe but its political leaders, particularly in Britain, are too obsessed with being politically correct.

“There is almost no country more politically correct than the UK. Look at the terrible things that happened in London after Madrid, you have more reason than most to make this debate transparent and public,” he said.

Mr Wilders split from the Dutch liberals in September 2004 over their support for EU membership for Turkey.

Two months later he was living in fear after police arrested suspected terrorists, armed with grenades, accused of planning to kill him. The Dutch politician says he and his wife have received more than 600 death threats.

Mr Wilders, who is always surrounded by plain clothes police guards, said: “I lost my freedom and privacy because of my opposition to Islam.”

http://tinyurl.com/yocbz6

Posted by Drew458     on 02/18/2008 at 09:41 AM   
Filed Under: • Immigration • Muslims •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 06, 2008

Children of foreign millionaire given £30,750 for court battle

Oh to be in England when it’s hand out time. Brits are the most generous ppl on earth.  Their ratepayers give and they give and they give.  And they would give even more but any monies left over are saved for illegal immigrants and those seeking asylum so they can make bomb in peace.

Legal aid for the rich: Children of foreign millionaire given £30,750 for court battle

By NEIL SEARS - More by this author »

Millionaire jeweller Iqbal Mubarik and his wife Aaliya Mubarak could not even agree how to spell their surname so maybe it was no surprise when they divorced.
He was told to pay her almost £5million but, eight years on, he has given her just £266,000 and spent £2million on legal fees trying to hang on to his money.
Even more astonishing is that two of their four children have been given legal aid of £30,750 to defend their interests.

Taxpayers are funding lawyers for the public-school educated children of a millionaire who manages to avoid paying tax and only moved to England ten years ago.

Now haven’t I been tellin’ ya and for how long?  The taxpayer is loaded and there’s plenty more where this came from you betcha.

High Court Judge Sir James Holman, hearing the latest stage of this Bleak House-style legal saga, said the affair was “about as bad a case as it is possible to imagine”.
The judge added that using legal aid for the children was “exquisitely ironical” as their parents “although resident here for tax purposes and liable for English taxation, manage to avoid paying any tax at all”.
In contrast, cuts to the legal aid budget include last month’s ruling that families of soldiers killed in action could not have free legal representation at inquests.
The Mubarik v Mubarak saga began in 1998 when Mr Mubarik, 48, an owner of the Dianoor Group of shops which has an outlet on New Bond Street in London, separated from his wife, 47.

In 1999, he was ordered to pay her a lump sum of £4.875million.
He has since gone to court repeatedly to try to avoid paying.
And as the family’s interest in the Dianoor jewellers is governed by trusts and companies established in the tax havens of Jersey and Bermuda, it is extremely hard to track Mr Mubarik’s money down.  The couple, from India, have four children, aged nine to 22, and for a couple of years the jeweller paid £14,000 a month maintenance.
By May 2005, he was paying only school fees, forcing his wife, who lives in Kensington, West London, to take out loans.

Mr Mubarik, who lives in a £ 2million house in Central London, has claimed he is £2.3million in debt.
But early in the case, he and business colleague Mohammed Wani, 58, were caught presenting false evidence.
The court decided he was worth “numerous millions”, with figures as high as £30million mentioned.
Last year, High Court Judge Sir David Bodey said: “The husband and wife have fought the good fight with all their might at considerable expense.
“The overall costs toll is appalling. It could involve litigation in four or five other countries, as well as here.
“The combined total is unclear, but before long it seems set to head off towards the direction of the amount of the lump sum.”

Even in 2000, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was “little short of tragic folly seemingly intelligent and civilised people should think that is a responsible way to make use of the family justice system”.
By 2004, he was describing the case as “insane”.
Aside from monthly maintenance paid in lieu of interest, Mrs Mubarak has managed to squeeze only £266,000 out of her ex-husband through enforcing the sale of property.  He now owes her about £7million, including legal costs and arrears.

The soaring bill for legal aid has risen to £620million a year for civil cases and £1.2billion for criminal.
Primarily, legal aid is supposed to be directed at people on benefits, or pensioners with an income of less than £289 a month.
A spokesman for the Legal Services Commission said a rule change in April meant similar legal aid payouts were unlikely as the capital and income of parents is now included in assessments.

http://tinyurl.com/2p5xml

Posted by Drew458     on 02/06/2008 at 02:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Immigration • Insanity • Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (1) • Permalink •  

   Friday - January 04, 2008

I AM NOT A HAPPY DARN CAMPER!  and hello Littleton,Co. from Littleton, England

I received something in today’s mail of some interest.

It was my absentee ballot from home. (USA)

Someone once told me that the first person to use the F-word in a debate automatically loses the argument.

You guys have no idea how hard it is for me not to lose it and fly off the handle.  But I’m thinking it. Oh boy ...

I really am bothered by the fact that my ballot is also printed in another language.  WHY?  Damn it!

Hey ... if people can’t read and understand the language of my country, why do they have the right to vote?

Just because they pay taxes?  Maybe? 

My grandfather came to America around 1903 from Eastern Europe and always said when asked about his birth date that he was born in 1903.

He came to the USA already speaking English because he knew damn well nobody was going to hand him anything for free.

Becoming an American citizen with the right to vote was for him an undreamed of privilege.  And he could read and write English too.

The mere sight of the Stars and Stripes on parade during the 4th of July brought tears to his eyes.  He never felt that he repaid the USA enuff
in exchange for what it had given him.  And it wasn’t official documents in his native language I’ll tell ya that.

He didn’t have much patience for people who complained about paying taxes either, telling them to go live where he came from first.  Then come back to the USA and gripe.  But not to him.  Like most immigrants of his ethnic group and generation, economics played a smaller role in his reasons for becoming an American.  It wasn’t all roses to be sure.  But he was given a fair opportunity to sink or swim. 

OK look, I might be off base here.  Times have changed a lot and most folks come to the USA and the UK I believe, less due to racial persecution

then they do for the opportunity to better themselves economically.  I don’t even have a problem with that.

But for gosh sake ..... LEARN THE EFFIN DAMN LANGUAGE !

Posted by Drew458     on 01/04/2008 at 11:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Immigration • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 18, 2007

A Picket Fence Instead

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for “two layers of reinforced fencing” and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed.  When congress passed their spending bill last night, how do you think it came out?

Spending bill shrinks border fence

Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.

The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes, surrenders to President Bush’s budget demands, meeting his spending limit with a $515 billion bill to fund most of the federal government and setting up votes to pay for the Iraq war. But Democrats reached his goal in part by slashing his defense and foreign-aid priorities to pay for added domestic spending.

I don’t mind slashing some foreign aid, but defense cuts and domestic spending increases?  Good grief, if we don’t secure the border, there won’t be anything domestic to spend it on.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 12/18/2007 at 11:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens • Immigration • Politics •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 05, 2007

ALL FAITHS WE DO EMBRACE CAUSE WE’RE BIG ON “DIVERSITY”

OKAY BOYS AND GIRLS, FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT ALREADY KNOW, THE BRIT NATIONAL ANTHEM HAS THE VERY SAME MUSIC AS OUR (USA) “MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE.”

IT’S BEEN SUGGESTED HERE THAT THE NATL. ANTHEM CHANGE A BIT TO MAKE IT MORE “INCLUSIVE.” WELL I’M NOT A BRIT BUT I DON’T LIKE THAT IDEA AT ALL.  AND NEITHER APPARENTLY DOES THE BRILLIANT LITTLEJOHN, WHO WRITES FOR THE DAILY MAIL.

MUCH TO THE CHAGRIN OF MANY BRITS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS TAKEN HOLD HERE BIG TIME.  THERE’S EVEN GONNA BE A CHRISTMAS (UPDATED AND MODERN) NATIVITY STORY ON BBC TV WITH MARY AND JOSEPH AS “ASYLUM SEEKERS.” IT’LL BE THE SUBJECT OF MY NEXT POSTING.

OH COME ALL YE FAITHLESS (telegraph editorial)

Littlejohn:

How about ‘God save poor Gordon Brown’ as an alternative?
21:41pm 3rd December 2007

Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general leading Gordon Brown’s “Makes You Proud To Be British” committee, wants the National Anthem rewritten.
He says the traditional version is not “inclusive” and particularly objects to verse six (did you know there was a verse six?) containing the line: “Rebellious Scots to crush.”

Presumably he would like Flower of Scotland revised, too, since it refers to sending home the English army “tae think again”. an

Meanwhile a Welsh Labour MP says the Union Flag should be redesigned to include the Welsh Dragon.

Why not go the whole hog and chuck in a Muslim Red Crescent and the eagle from the Polish flag?

Actually, when it comes to God Save The Queen, the Sex Pistols got it right 30 years ago in their apocalyptic hit single of the same name.

“There is no future in England’s dreaming.”

Still, I thought I’d give Goldsmith a hand in bringing the National Anthem up to date and making it more inclusive. As always, it helps if you sing along.

•God save poor Gordon Brown

Caught with his trousers down God help him now.

Send him your sympathy

Brought low by infamy

Donors and lost CDs

God save our Gord

•All faiths we do embrace

The whole of the human race

Can settle here.

Big on diversity

And inclusivity

Banned the Nativity

God help us all.

•Our land ancestral

Now multicultural

All welcome here.

No need to integrate

We will just celebrate

You can live off the state

No questions asked.

•If you’re a terrorist

Or fundamentalist

We’ll take you in.

Give you a council home

Money and mobile phone

Health care and a car to own

No need to queue.

•Mullahs from Pakistan,

Jihadists, Taliban

Please come on down.

Feel free to murder us

Blow up a train or bus

We promise not to make a fuss

God help us all.

•Forgive us our racist sins

And for filling our wheely bins

With the wrong kind of waste.

Though it’s a mystery

We hate our own history

Even banned Christmas trees

God help us all

http://tinyurl.com/2b6cxm

Posted by Drew458     on 12/05/2007 at 09:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Immigration •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 25, 2007

Immigration Plan Released

A little late reporting this, but still looks better than anything else I’ve seen.

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Plan Released

In previous commentaries Fred has mentioned the need to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law. In “The Importance of Border Security” he wrote,

You can’t have national security without border security. It’s not only necessary for any meaningful immigration reform; border security plays a key role in both the interdiction of illegal drugs and in defending America against terrorist threats. Weak borders allow terrorists and smugglers, as well as millions of illegal aliens, easy entrance to the United States. Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear our government is committed to its first responsibility: the protection of our borders.

Today, Fred has released his Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan.

These are the highlights:

No Amnesty. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.
Attrition through Enforcement. Adding “at least 25,000 agents” to the Border Patrol and doubling the number of ICE agents.
Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Rejecting sanctuary cities by cutting federal discretionary funds to states and local governments that ignore existing immigration laws.
Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Require U.S. employers to use the E-Verify system to determine if a person can legally work here.
Bolster Border Security. Finish building the wall along our border.
Increased Prosecution. Go after coyotes, alien gang members, and criminals.
Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking.

The plan also includes improving our immigration process; rewarding those who play by the rules and add to our country:

Maximize Program Efficiency. Make it faster and easier for employers and immigrants to obey the law.
Enhanced Reporting.
Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Reduce chain migration to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
English As Official Language. The plan would promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.
Freedom from Political Oppression. The U.S. would continue to welcome victims of ruthless regimes.
Service to Country. Those lawfully serving in our armed forces would have an easier time becoming U.S. citizens.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/25/2007 at 08:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred • Immigration •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - August 03, 2007

Welcome to Canada

In keeping with my guest-poster status here at/on the BMEWS, I’ve dredged up one of my old blog entries to post tonight.

I don’t know why I picked this one, but it’s just as relevant a year later. Maybe it’s because it flies in the face of the “retain your culture, it’s probably better than ours” dogma that’s been Canadian Government policy for most of the past 40 years. A good indication of that can be found in Mark Steyn’s excellent column entitled “Windsor Hassle” at The Western Standard Website.

But I digress.

Canada, like a lot of other places, is a nation of immigrants. My maternal grandparents came from the Ukraine in the 1910s, and on the paternal side, my ancestors started filtering in 1837 from England and Ireland.

But enough background. Here’s my original post:

- - - -

Welcome to Canada. We’re glad you’re here. For some of you, we can’t even begin to imagine the kind of life you had where you came from. So be a part of us.

Before you get settled in, though, here’s a couple of rules to follow:

1. Leave any hatred and mistrust of the police where you came from. The hard-working police in Canada are dedicated men and women who maintain the rule of law in this country. That means if you see someone breaking the law, call 911 and tell them. Don’t automatically assume that all cops are “on the take”, because they aren’t.

2. Leave any hatred and mistrust of other ethnic groups where you came from. We have enough problems of our own. While those problems may pale in comparison to what you’ve been through, they’re our problems none the less.

3. Your culture is yours. Share it with us. Let us know why you’re you, and we’ll let you know why we’re us. Don’t think for a minute, though, that being of a different culture means that you’re immune to criticism either as an individual or a group. Because you’re not, and here, none of us is. If you do find yourself criticized, crying “racist” doesn’t help.

4. Here’s a list of our friends: The United States, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean countries, Israel, most of Europe, hell - most of the world. Here’s a list of countries and groups we’re not overly fond of: Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and any other terrorist organization including the warlords running parts of Africa, and the governments of Iran and North Korea. If you’re here to support the bad guys, turn around, ‘cause we don’t want you.

5. Strive for success. Start a business. Be part of the community - not just “yours”, but “ours”. Teach your children right from wrong without using another ethnic group or culture as (bad) examples.

6. Women have rights in this country. If your culture deems women as “second-class”, or that it can be justified to beat or kill them, then it’s best to stay where you are.

7. Drop the hyphen. We don’t need to know that you’re a “this"-Canadian or a “that"-Canadian. Simply “Canadian” is fine, thank-you.

- - - -

Anyone else like to add to the list, perhaps as a guide to those coming to their country?

Posted by Somnambulist57     on 08/03/2007 at 09:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Immigration •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - July 26, 2007

Moral Conundrum

A couple of weeks ago, our church did an outreach to the local area.  For three days we partnered with a local contractor and did some work on local homes that were in dire need of repair.  Then in the evenings, in the local park, we conducted a “kid’s camp” for any and all kids that were there.  Kind of like a Vacation Bible School, but at the park.

One lady who had her kids there was a Hispanic woman with two boys: age 10 and 2.  They had a great time and in the course of the week, we found out she really wanted to learn English so she could get a job.  She had been watching kids in her home, but since they were all Spanish speakers, it was no problem. 

So my wife and I and another lady from the church have been meeting her and her kids in the park twice a week now to let our kids play together while we help her with English.  She is a quick study and very smart.  I’m confident that she will be conversational within a month of twice-a-week lessons.

I have not asked directly yet, but my suspicion is that she is probably here illegally.  From what I’ve gathered, her and her husband came from Mexico about 10 years ago to California.  They recently moved to the east coast to be closer to family.

Now, you’ve seen my posts on illegal immigration and know that I’m staunchly against it.  I firmly believe it is an affront to those who stood in line and followed the process. 
But now there’s a name and a face and a family to go with that opinion.

I would not turn them in at this point, mainly because I’m not sure they are illegal (I can speak a good bit of Spanish, but do not consider myself fluent) as well as my feeling that it would not accomplish anything meaningful.  Here are a couple of pretty productive, smart and resourceful individuals (who also have two American sons).  I doubt they would get sent anywhere at this point.

So here’s the conundrum:  Do I continue to help her learn English in hopes that she can progress a little in society and be more productive?  Or do I drop the lessons, claiming the moral high ground because of my stance on illegal immigration?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 07/26/2007 at 01:58 PM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens • Immigration •  
• Comments (40) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 24, 2007

If Only Ours Would Say This

Kim has his ”quote of the day” posted today. Its an oldie, but goodie.

If only GWB had the balls to say this.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 07/24/2007 at 01:51 PM   
Filed Under: • Immigration •  
• Comments (6) • 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 © 2004-2008 Domain Owner