Saturday - March 13, 2010
Conservative lead over Labour falls to two year low. Question is, whose picking up the lost points?
Heaven help England if this gets worse. I say heaven cos that’d be their only hope.
Proves not that the ppl are all that left wing but that they haven’t the faith in the Tories either. But at least there might be some hope of better things if the union loving, left wing, overly socialist, politically correct jerks in office now could be tossed out. I just can bring myself to believe that the people of this country want another term in office of the group that has brought this country so low.
Not good news.
Conservative lead over Labour falls to two year lowDavid Cameron suffers a fresh blow today with a new opinion poll showing the Conservative lead over Labour falling to a two-year low and suggesting the party will fall well short of winning an outright majority at the general election.
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
The Conservatives (38 per cent) are seven points ahead of Labour (31 per cent) in the ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph, down from a lead of nine points last month. The Liberal Democrats are up one point to 21 per cent.
Repeated at the election, widely expected on 6 May, and with a uniform national swing, the Tories would be the largest party in the House of Commons but still 30 seats short of an overall majority.
The seven-point Conservative lead equals the narrowest advantage in any ICM poll for the last two years.
Mr Cameron is still trusted by voters more than Gordon Brown on three key issues - the economy, education and the NHS - but again his lead has narrowed.
The poll findings follow two jittery months in which the Tories have struggled to set the agenda and have been hit by a series of setbacks, including revelations this month over the “non dom” tax status of Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the party.
At its height, the Tory lead over Labour was 20 points.
Posted by peiper
on 03/13/2010 at 06:19 PM
Filed Under: • Politics • UK •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Wednesday - February 24, 2010
Treason plus Immigration have changed the face of Britain. Another left wing stab in the back.
I have done some editing so read it all at the link. This could well be the plot for a good movie, but it is honest to gosh all true. No urban myth, right wing political smear of the left here. The left did it to themselves. This really is a case of a govt., in the holy names of diversity and multi culture, attacking the state they are supposed to be protecting. In any other age but ours, this would be (as I understand it) treason.
At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its historyBy MELANIE PHILLIPS
24th February 2010Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive - and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.
During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.
Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.
Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society - and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.
Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.
The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.
He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar - government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.
The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ - and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret.
They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society - and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour.They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place.
And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist.
There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist.
Posted by peiper
on 02/24/2010 at 10:40 AM
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • DIVERSITY BS • Government • Illegal-Aliens • Immigration • OBITITUARIES • Outrageous • Politics • UK •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Monday - February 08, 2010
SARA HAS SIGHT ON WHITE HOUSE BUT MINUS THE PARTY. TEA THAT IS. ??
SOME COMMENTS ON PALIN by people who don’t know the USA and wouldn’t learn if given the chance.
A Molly wrote:
I do believe everyone in life gets what they deserve..so if Palin is what America wants, so be it. I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
All I can do from here is hope that Europe will never again be fooled by the lies that have come out of America in the past and will never lead our troops into another 8 years of war on their behalf.
Let the cowboys fight their own battles in the future.
If it’s in Palin you trust, well good luck to you!
Ellie Light wrote:
Sarah Palin is a proven quitter, with little experience and even lower inate intelligence (I can see Russia). Her only accomplishment is that she can reproduce, but even that she did not do properly. She is not even a good mother, raising a daughter that breeds an illegitimate grandchild. She is a joke. Her only supporters are gap toothed inbreds from Appalachia.
And that’s about as kind as it gets here among the comments from ppl foreign and domestic with regard to Americans (who they take to be war loving, ignorant, inbred hillbillys) who led them into an 8 year war ongoing. The suggestion is also made that America should fight it’s own battles and not drag others into our quarrels. Some see Palin as “Bush in a wig.”
Tell the truth, the comments section is more interesting then the article but also more aggravating because they also show how little they know us, and how mean spirited some folks can be with regard to the USA.
There was a column recently from America reporting on the trend Obama seems to be setting, that the writer feels is somewhat isolationist. Which he doesn’t believe to be a good thing. Being something of an isolationist myself, I wondered if that’s a bad thing. Is Barry doing something right? Nah. In my dreams. But I’ll be honest no matter how bad it might make me look. I wish we could be isolationist and circle the wagons and tell the world to go to hell.
Americans have enough home grown problems to deal with. Serious problems that I don’t see being resolved no matter who’s in office. We mostly aren’t getting along very well with each other, who needs the additional headache of arguments with people outside our own country?
Back to Mrs. Palin for a moment.
She was paid a hefty sum it’s been reported, to address the Tea Party folks in Nashville recently. As I understand it and if I don’t I know BMEWS will correct me, she also accepted a second speaking date with the TP. BUT ... she has also appeared FREE on behalf of Republicians who have different views then that of the Tea Party Congress. She has also agreed to speak on behalf of Sen, McCain. Why? He surely isn’t running for anything. Is he?
Sometimes I get to feeling a bit overwhelmed.
Here’s part of the article and as always the rest is at the link below.
Sarah Palin has her sights on the White House not Tea Party movement
Giles Whittell in Washington
The TimesSarah Palin has given the clearest indication yet that her ambition is to become President of the United States, rather than merely the leader of the radical grassroots Tea Party movement that adores her.
The day after her return to national politics with a barnstorming attack on President Obama in a speech in Nashville, Mrs Palin was shown a poll yesterday ranking her the top Republican candidate for 2012 and asked if she would run.
“I would,” she said without hesitation. “I would, if I believed that that was the right thing to do for my country and for my family.”
In an interview with Fox News, for which she is also a paid analyst, Mrs Palin said that it would be “absurd not to consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country”. She said that she would not “close a door that could perhaps be open to me in the future” and acknowledged that she had started receiving daily political and economic briefings by e-mail from a panel of Washington experts.
In oblique reference to a disastrous pre-election interview with CBS in 2008, she added: “I sure as heck better be more astute on these national issues than I was two years ago.”
Posted by peiper
on 02/08/2010 at 08:45 AM
Filed Under: • Celebrities • News-Briefs • Politics • Republicans • Sarah Palin • USA •
• Comments (9)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Tuesday - January 19, 2010
And it’s over
Brown wins, Coakley tosses in the towel
You may now exhale. America has wobbled back a tiny tiny bit from the abyss.
Onitwit* is now 0-5 and has the official Touch of Death. The Olympics. Copenhagen. New Jersey’s Corzine. Virginia’s Deeds. “Massachussettes’” Coakley.
Has it begun? I think so. A snowball is building. And it’s all downhill from here for the Great Pretender. Avalanche!
Michelle Malkin: “there are more long faces at MSNBC than at an aardvark convention. Sweet, sweet victory.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/19/2010 at 09:25 PM
Filed Under: • Politics •
• Comments (12)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Sunday - January 17, 2010
Dirty Pool
h/t to Vilmar
Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.
That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.
“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”
Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.
According to Wikipedia, reconciliation has been around since 1973. What is it?
Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.
Now, isn’t this the interesting bit ...
Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton’s 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee’s “Gang of Six” bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, said that reconciliation is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.
Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate’s Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.
The resolution process was used to get GW Bush’s tax cut plan passed.
Oh, and who is this Gang Of Six again?
Which means there are actually 3 Dems, 2 RINOS, and a maybe R on the damn thing. BINO? Bipartisan in name only?
And just who or what is this “parliamentarian”? It turns out to be one guy. ONE GUY. Named Alan Frumin, an unelected person who has had the job since 2001, and if he ALONE decides that the policy changes in the bill are NOT “incidental” then they can all be included. Or he can cut the massive bill to shreds and just let through the pieces that he wants. ONE GUY to decide the future of 1/6 of the American economy for the foreseeable future. How’s that for absolute power?
All of this isn’t really news. It’s been out there, flying under the radar, since August or even earlier. It’s just another bit of crap brought up at the last second just to keep the masses wound up. But it sure shows the snake-breaking corkscrew processes that go on in DC that few of us know about or pay attention to. And that crap is just too damn slick in my opinion.
So, come the revolution, here’s one more item for the laundry list of things that need a-fixin’. Pick a number, any number, to be the required percentage of the Senate vote for a bill to pass. 51%, 60%, or better yet 67%. And every single bill brought to vote - after having proved it’s constitutionality of course, will be held to that standard. Every. Single. Bill. No bill will be allowed to be retracted once it comes up for a vote, and if it doesn’t achieve the necessary votes, it can not be brought up for another vote for 18 months. No reconciliation nonsense, and no extraordinary power vested in one unelected “parliamentarian” position. Period. Cut the shenanigans. No moving the goalposts, no changing the playing field at the last minute. No almost holy secret decision maker in the back room somewhere. One set of rules for everything, out in the open, no exceptions. I’m sick of the little bullshit games from both sides of the aisle.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/17/2010 at 01:48 PM
Filed Under: • Politics •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Saturday - January 16, 2010
One If By Land
Nothing to see here, move along. No media bias whatsoever. It’s just advertising revenue.
Ok, I may be being unfair to the Boston Herald. I do not know this paper or which way it leans. But an SEIU attack ad in their headline banner? Oh come on already.
Here’s another one, their article on an attack ad the Dems put out. (RE: comments from another post. See how easy it is to play with their names?)
Shipping giant UPS isn’t amused by a Democratic Party campaign pamphlet attacking Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown that plays off the company’s slogan “What can Brown do for you?”
Atlanta-based United Parcel Service, known for its ubiquitous brown trucks, demanded yesterday that the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which is listed as paying for the pamphlet, stop distributing it.
The mailer asks “What can Brown do to you?” It shows Scott Brown dressed up as a UPS driver and says, “He can reward corporations that ship your job overseas just like George W. Bush.”
Comments at that article promise to rub the Dem’s noses in the Brown stuff. Most telling one so far, put in by the bloggers at Clean Sweep Beacon Hill
Did she steal UPS’s trademarked property? Absolutely! She never got permission, never asked! Doesn’t get any better than this...
Meanwhile, his Supreme Haughtiness Hisself is coming up to Boston on Sunday to stump for the flailing Croakster. Takers of the opinion poll at the BH are going 2/3 that this is a move of desperation.
President Obama is steaming into the Bay State on a high-stakes mission to rescue Democrat Martha Coakley’s stranded Senate bid from a GOP wave that could sink his landmark health-care reform bill as well.
“It’s white-knuckle time,” said Democratic operative Phil Johnston. “This is an election we have to win. It’s key to everything the Obama administration wants to do. The stakes are high.”
...
The pressure is now on Obama - facing the lowest ratings of his presidency - to set Coakley on a winning course after his Sunday visit. A victory by Brown would endanger the health-care initiative in the Senate.
...
A presidential visit during the ongoing devastation in Haiti coupled with the bruising health-care battle on Capitol Hill means Coakley must be in severe danger, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.“I think (the White House) would have preferred that he not make the trip unless he had to, but now he knows he has to,” said Sabato. “They were hoping she would pull out of the tailspin, but the tailspin continues, which means he has to ride to the rescue.”
The trip poses a significant political risk for Obama after he stumped for Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey and for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Both Democrats lost.
How do Tea Partyer’s like their tea? Hot and Brown of course! (see? the “clever” wording possibilities are infinite. And you simply can’t avoid using the Lexington quote)
Tea Party members brew Scott Brown boost
Massachusetts is becoming ground zero for the national Tea Party movement as emboldened activists flock from Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York in hopes of helping Scott Brown’s meteoric campaign close the deal in the race for U.S. Senate.
“If Brown wins this election, it will be the shot heard around the world,” said Rhode Island Tea Party President Colleen Conley. “This will be a clear indictment of the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congress overreaching.”
Activists from several states are volunteering to rally, donate and make phone calls.
Rhode Island Tea Party members will spend their weekend in the Bay State campaigning for Brown
Tea Party members from Montana, Texas and Georgia have been flooding The Greater Boston Tea Party and the Plymouth Rock Tea Party with calls, representatives told the Herald. Activists also are emptying their wallets, with the Sacramento, Calif.-based Tea Party Express having spent contributions on ad buys for Brown, said spokesman Levi Russell.
Connecticut state coordinator Tanya Bachand said, “Anything we can do to stop the health-care bill in Washington is what we’re really aimed at.”
Michigan’s Jeffrey McQueen, founder of USRevolution2.com, which produces a modified American flag [shown below] that’s become a symbol of the Tea Party movement, said a Brown win “would send earthquake tremors through the Democratic Party.”
Outstanding. It’s the People’s seat, and The People are speaking up. And maybe Massachusetts, home of revolution, is waking up. Stay tuned. The election is Tuesday.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/16/2010 at 11:40 AM
Filed Under: • Media-Bias • Politics •
• Comments (7)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Thursday - January 14, 2010
Dead Heat In MA Special Election
The Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election has gotten tighter, but the general dynamics remain the same.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.
Three percent (3%) say they’ll vote for independent candidate Joe Kennedy, and two percent (2%) are undecided. The independent is no relation to the late Edward M. Kennedy, whose Senate seat the candidates are battling to fill in next Tuesday’s election.
Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.
All polling indicates that a lower turnout is better for the Republican. The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Brown is ahead by two percentage points among those who are absolutely certain they will vote. A week ago, he trailed by two among those certain to vote.
To overcome the enthusiasm gap and help generate a larger turnout, national Democrats are getting involved in the race. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is reportedly spending more than half a million dollars in the final days of a campaign that Coakley has long been the heavy favorite to win. Senator John Kerry in an emergency fund raising letter for Coakley today says the race is “a dead heat,” and he and former President Bill Clinton plan to campaign in the state on Friday.
Brown raised over a million dollars on Monday and appears to have narrowed the financial gap so far. Coakley has gone negative in the second television ad of her campaign, one that includes Brown in front of a picture of conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. She also sought to link Brown to former President George W. Bush during the debate.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of likely voters in Massachusetts have a favorable opinion of Brown, and 58% say the same about Coakley.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters think Coakley will win the election, while 33% expect a victory for Brown.
Brown is getting lots of small donations by citizens. Coakley is being funded by the SEIU, Big Pharma, and the Democrat’s Congressional election fund. The election is in 5 days. “Massachusettes” is overwhelmingly Democrat. Registered Republicans are something like only 19%. Or was it 9%? Michelle Malkin et al are all over this campaign and the leftist shenanigans.
Electing Brown will tip the balance of power in the Senate. Which is why the left is frantic to try and get the health care idiocy passed right the hell now! And, of course, their back-up plan of not allowing him to be seated until after the vote should he win. Stuff and nonsense, but that’s how dirty politics is in DC. Brown is worth electing for this reason alone, but it’s a long, long uphill battle in dark blue Massachusetts.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/14/2010 at 09:17 AM
Filed Under: • Politics •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Tuesday - January 12, 2010
The People’s Seat
Can one line win a campaign? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly can define one. And his was de fine one! Plus, he has good hair. So let’s hope for some hope, pray that this wasn’t just a throw away remark - that it’s truly indicative of his character and beliefs - and that the people of Massachusetts finally wake up from their 46 year nap.
h/t to American Glob, Via Jumping in Pools
For more coverage of Brown’s campaign, go visit Legal Insurrections.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/12/2010 at 08:50 AM
Filed Under: • Politics •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Monday - January 11, 2010
Newt Gingrich … Crush the Left!
I know that of late many cons are a tad upset with Newt but gosh, he sure does know how to nail down a subject and inspire a crowd.
And who among us would disagree with his thoughts on the 9th cir.court?
Some of you might have seen this, but perhaps many more (like me?) are seeing and hearing this for the first time. And it’s worth it.
H/T Jim Miller
Here’s one of the comments left at YT. Seems a few ppl are feeling the same but I haven’t kept very well up to date on the topic of Newt.
I have not had much problem with his knowledge, only his loyalties. He always says the right thing. He seldom does the right thing. Much like Obama’s speech last week sounded like Reagan, he has no intention of doing anything to move us away from the grip of the globalists who are in control and destroying our liberties.
Posted by peiper
on 01/11/2010 at 08:52 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Liberals • Politics • USA •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Sunday - December 06, 2009
PART TWO, THE ROMANCE OF HILLARY AND DAVID … IS IT REALLY LOVE THIS TIME? BABANAS FOR CIGARS?
To be fair and honest here, and really I should be otherwise I become the left, I have found flattering and very nice photos of these two people. But as you know, cameras shoot a many fames per second and every twitch and twist is caught too quickly to ever undo. Except with PhotoShop. However, I chose to post these photos instead.
Hillary Clinton and David Miliband all touchy-feely as she indulges her ‘toyboy crush’ at Nato meeting ( PART TWO)
By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 2:20 PM on 04th December 2009Or, perhaps not - perhaps Hillary Clinton is, once again, taking the ‘special relationship’ a little too literally.
The U.S. Secretary of State collapsed in a fit of girlish giggles during a Nato meeting today at Mr Miliband’s presumably witty comments.
Mrs Clinton owned up to an unlikely crush on the ‘vibrant, vital, attractive, smart’ British Foreign Secretary last month.
Speaking in Vogue magazine, Mrs Clinton, 62, joked with an interviewer about Mr Miliband’s accent. ‘Well, if you saw him it would be a BIG crush,’ she said.‘I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young!’
Her remarks are an unlikely compliment for Mr Miliband, who has often been teased about his geeky image.
Former Labour spin doctor Allistair Campbell famously called him ‘Brains’ - not because of his formidable intellect, but for of his resemblance to the nerdish puppet character of the same name in the children’s programme Thunderbirds.
Mr Miliband also seems taken with his American counterpart.
Today he seemed to take delight in teasing the former First Lady - and looked distinctly unimpressed when another man joined their tete-a-tete.
Last month he said Mrs Clinton was ‘delightful to deal with one on one’ and added: ‘She’s someone who laughs and can tease, and she’s got perspective as well.’MELANIE PHILLIPS: Arrogant, ignorant and out of his depth, is Banana Boy Miliband our worst Foreign Secretary ever?
The most startling thing about David Miliband is that he has been taken as seriously as he has for so long.
His latest achievement is to have upset the government of India so badly that it has reacted with unprecedented public fury. This is because on his visit there last week he suggested that the only reason India was targeted by Islamic terrorism was its dispute over Kashmir, and that the government of Pakistan had played no part in the terrorist attack on Mumbai last November.
In a much-mocked article he wrote in the Guardian, he claimed that Islamic terrorism did not have one unifying characteristic but was merely caused by different grievances - such as Kashmir - and that the best way of dealing with it was not through confrontation but ‘co-operation’.
For a Foreign Secretary to display as he did such ignorance about the nature and antecedents of global Islamic terrorism was simply astounding.
Posted by peiper
on 12/06/2009 at 06:39 AM
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Politics • UK • USA •
• Comments (7)
•
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.
SWITZERLAND: THE GOVERNMENT -VS- THE PEOPLE
Brussels Journal 3 December 2009
By George HandleryGeorge 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 • Immigration • International • Media-Bias • Muslims • Politics •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Tuesday - December 01, 2009
Muslims who have settled in Switzerland should not confuse culture with creed
While the mostly white liberal, left wing loony tunes and a few muslims are bitching about the loss of freedom of religion by those evil Swiss,
there are a couple of muslim voices that sound another call and have another opinion on the subject.
The Swiss vote does not infringe Muslim religious rights
Minarets are not an essential part of Islam
Taj Hargey
From The Times December 1, 2009Switzerland’s referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic but it does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims. Minarets remain emblematic of mosques in the Muslim heartlands but there is no theological reason why houses of worship in the West have to incorporate such towers.
Their original purpose was to relay the prayer call with the unamplified voice. Today this is done by modern technology, so minarets are not integral to contemporary mosque design. European mosques should stop mindlessly mimicking Eastern design and create prayer halls that blend into the landscape.
Muslims who have settled in Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe) should not confuse culture with creed. To become integrated into their surroundings, they must relinquish the cultural baggage of their ancestral homelands. They should practice a Swiss Islam that is rooted in the society in which they live.
Although the Swiss have been convinced by right-wing zealots that minarets are a problem, local Muslims should not embrace a victim mentality. They must confront the toxic radicalisation of their faith that is imported from overseas.
The Wahhabi denomination (and its kindred sects), which has unlimited petrodollars and exclusive jurisdiction over Islam’s holiest mosques, engenders rampant misogyny, anti-democratic obscurantism and an archaic legal code, which includes an un-Koranic prohibition on non-Muslim religious buildings in Islamic lands. Switzerland now joins Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in banning the buildings of non-dominant faiths.
When European Muslims unthinkingly endorse this warped theology by desiring medieval Sharia, defending honour killings, stoning to death, forced marriages, Muslim exceptionalism and a separatist society, they only invoke fear and exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiment. When Europe’s Muslims extol such un-Koranic doctrines as the niqab (face veil), they exclude themselves from the mainstream.
Only when Muslim immigrants and converts in Europe reject the twisted ideology of a fundamentalist male clergy will the chief causes of anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe recede. Meanwhile, despite the Islamophobic minaret ban, the religious rights of Swiss Muslims remain intact. They do, however, have a rare opportunity to cut the link with the dominant theology of the East and to restore Islam’s pristine beliefs.
Dr Taj Hargey is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation in Oxford
Sad to say however, that there is far more of this:
Muslim protesters pelt Tory peer Baroness Warsi with eggs during walkabout in Luton
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:00 AM on 01st December 2009
The country’s most powerful Muslim woman was pelted with eggs by a group of young Islamists yesterday.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, was visiting Luton with one of her party’s election candidates.
But during a visit to the Bury Park area, she was confronted by protesters who shouted her down before throwing several eggs, one of which hit her and another landed on a supporter.
With egg yolk running through her hair, the Baroness attempted to reason with the members of outlawed extremist group Al-Muhajiroun - only to be harangued.
The young men of Al-Muhajiroun, which in March this year took part in protests against soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment during a homecoming parade, accused her of not being a proper Muslim and supporting the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Posted by peiper
on 12/01/2009 at 08:40 AM
Filed Under: • Muslims • Politics • Religion • Terrorists • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Monday - November 30, 2009
The Swiss say no to minarets, as muzzies and europe left and vatican wring hands and cry foul.
Well, it isn’t any surprise that a number of oh so politically correct freekin idiots, The Vatican, The Times of London and of course the usual suspects,
The muzzies, are up in arms. Again.
The Swiss voted NO to minarets. Now there’s this howl of righteous indignation, this moral outrage mouthed by donkeys. No, Donks are smarter.
The charge made by all these holier then tho fools is, that the Swiss are violating freedom of religion. The Times editorial says the vote was an attack on religious liberty and even went to far as to say, and I quote exactly here, “ An attempt to restrict freedom of worship.”
“Intolerance of islam “ says the Times. (The Times spelled islam with a capital ‘I’ which will not do in keeping with the late Skippers dictum)
The Swiss vote DOES NOT restrict freedom of worship in any way shape or form. Nice of the Vatican and the Times tho, to continue the suck up tradition and comment on the inner workings of someone else’s country. Wouldn’t you think the Vatican had enough problems on its plate at the moment, or has not the latest boy love scandal made news in the states?
Of course the French had to add their worthless two cents .... once again sounding retreat.
Earlier on Monday the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said he was “scandalised” by the Swiss decision and said it represented a “show of intolerance” by France’s neighbour.
He said it was a “negative” move because banning the construction of Muslim mosque towers amounts to “oppressing a religion”.
He told France’s RTL radio: “I hope that the Swiss will go back on this decision rather quickly.”
And further word is that there is “criticism throughout Europe.” That may be. Most likely from the thumb sucking liberal left. That jerk is sandalized?”
Sure he is. Like so many he’s playing a PC role and letting the mudslimes know he’s a fair guy and not anti anything.
Naturally the left in Europe is calling for another vote. That figures.
As the Swiss say no to minarets, I vote we have many more referendums
Why is making decisions for the nation a right of the government and not one of the people, asks Melanie McDonagh.
By Melanie McDonagh
The Swiss have spoken and, oh dear, the government isn’t best pleased. Against all the approved advice, from churches, politicians and business, the people have voted to ban minarets.
The outcome of yesterday’s referendum was entirely unexpected, given that Swiss manufacturers, pallid at the thought of Abu Dhabi saying no to Swatches, had lobbied vigorously against a ban. The government wasn’t keen on reprisals from excitable Islamists. But notwithstanding all the high-level advice, the people were having none of it.
Actually, the notion of building minarets in Switzerland is pretty redundant. They couldn’t be used to call the faithful to prayer because noise regulations, this being Switzerland, don’t permit it. Small Islamic communities all over Switzerland just wanted to make their presence felt. On the skyline.
It was interesting, the nature of the coalition against the minarets. The campaign was led by the populist Swiss People’s Party, but it was supported, unexpectedly, by Swiss feminists because they have issues with Islam’s treatment of women. And – who knows – because of the phallic shape of the structures concerned. In fact, the most notable thing about the poll was that, in favour of the ban, women outnumbered men.
Personally, I blame the Turkish prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan. The opponents of minarets hardly needed to make an argument; all they needed to do was quote, out of context, his pronouncement that minarets are the bayonets of Islam and the job was done. Nice one, Mr E.
Actually, I felt rather cheered when I heard that the Swiss had voted as they did, for the simple and sufficient reason that I like it when people don’t do what they’re told by politicians. I was ecstatic when the Danes voted against the Nice Treaty; I felt a kind of subversive thrill when Ireland turned against the Lisbon Treaty, though it did vote the approved way second time round.
Referendums are brilliant, precisely because they give people a chance to consider what everyone says they ought to think and do, and then do just what they want anyway. It’s the nearest we get nowadays to the full-on democracy of Athens, unless you count reality television.
The sad thing, of course, is that it couldn’t happen here. Whenever anyone suggests having more referendums, politicians say, in a grand way: nope, we are a parliamentary democracy. Finis.
All very well, but it strikes me that we’re asking an awful lot of our general election vote. When we vote – those of us who can be bothered to – we’re required to cram into one little box the economy, Europe, assisted suicide, whether we like the look of Sarah Brown/Samantha Cameron, post office closures, hunting, and whether the local candidate seems an OK individual. In the event, most people simply go for the party that seems least likely to mess up the economy.
I think that’s too limited. I can see that for major issues in the manifesto, such as education and the economy, it’s pretty straightforward; you know how the parties stand, and you let them get on with it. But the party political box doesn’t do all those other contentious subjects justice.
In Ireland, I’ve seen abortion and divorce, two toxic issues, taken right out of the political realm by being put to the people in referendums in accordance with the constitution. It’s so much better that way. You get informed, interested public debate. I mean, I saw my aunt and her gentleman friend in Ireland arguing the ins and outs of the Lisbon Treaty. They knew more about it than I did.
Occasionally, there are local referendums here on matters other than devolution – a few decades back there was one in Wales about Sunday openings for pubs – but they’re tragically few.
So I don’t think we should turn up our noses at the Swiss. Whatever you think about the result, at least they were asked what they think. More than the Brits ever are.
Posted by peiper
on 11/30/2009 at 10:43 AM
Filed Under: • Immigration • Muslims • Politics • Religion •
• Comments (9)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Wednesday - November 25, 2009
Minarets could be banned this weekend as Swiss voters go to the polls.
The Swiss get referendums? Wow.
Be nice if they did. I guess we will wait and see if their left wing pc crowd manages to stop this very worthwhile cause.
Good luck and good wishes to The Swiss People’s Party. Maybe if successful, they can go after the mosques as well. Bottom line, this group is on the outs with the UN. It therefore follows that this must be a splendid group of fellows and ladies. I hope.
Personal Note:
Feeling as bad as the weather again. This damn bug seems to be doing a rebound, so my posts today are likely to be few. Just can’t shake this thing fast enough. Feel like I cracked a rib as well. Not saying I did. Just feels like it even when not coughing or sneezing.
Will the Swiss vote for a ban on minarets?By Alexandra Williams
25th November 2009Minarets could be banned this weekend as Swiss voters go to the polls for a controversial referendum.
The Right-wing Swiss People’s Party argues that the distinctive mosque features are a symbol of Islamic intolerance.
The party has led an emotive campaign to outlaw them. Posters depicting a woman in a burkha in front of minarets shaped like missiles, against the background of a Swiss flag, have been put up around the country.
Ulrich Schüler, an SVP parliamentarian and leading member of the anti-minaret movement, says the towers are political rather than religious.
‘They are symbols of a desire for power, of an Islam which wants to establish a legal and social order fundamentally contrary to the liberties guaranteed in our constitution,’ he said.
In 2007 elections his party won its largest ever share of the vote after mounting an anti-foreigner campaign denounced by the United Nations as racist.
One of its campaign posters showed a flock of white sheep kicking a black sheep out of Switzerland.
In 2007 elections his party won its largest ever share of the vote after mounting an anti-foreigner campaign denounced by the United Nations as racist.
The debate is particularly sensitive in a country with a large immigrant population and where 20 per cent are considered foreign.
About 400,000 - 5 per cent - of Swiss residents are Muslims.
If the majority of the electorate and states vote Yes on Sunday, the words ‘The construction of minarets is forbidden’ will be added to the country’s constitution.
Existing minarets will not be torn down.
The vote was triggered when almost 115,000 signed a people’s initiative handed to parliament last year in favour of the ban - 100,000 is enough to force a referendum.
And according to the latest opinion poll, support for the proposal is gaining momentum.
It is popular among residents of rural areas and towns in the German-speaking part of the country, a survey of 1,200 citizens showed earlier this month.
German is the most common language in Switzerland.
The latest figures show that 37 per cent would vote in favour of the ban, while 53 per cent said they would reject it. A further 10 per cent were undecided.
Both the cabinet and parliament are recommending voters turn down the initiative, with Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey describing it as ‘dangerous for foreign policy and Switzerland’s relations to other countries’.
Controversies have erupted in Switzerland over Muslims’ place in society in recent years. In 2004 two supermarket chains banned employees who deal with the public from wearing headscarves.
There are an estimated 160 mosques and cultural centres in Switzerland, but only four with a minaret.
They are normally used by religious leaders to call Muslims to prayer.
Posted by peiper
on 11/25/2009 at 07:51 AM
Filed Under: • Immigration • News-Briefs • Politics • Religion •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 03:14
Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 08:29
A Box With Four Sides
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Macker's World
See, Afghanistan was worth saving. I can't say the same about Pocky-stawn, especially since it possesses nuclear weapons and no thanks to North Korea, China, and AQ Khan. So they…
On: 05/07/09 01:37
Display it with pride
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Macker's World
Take a look at the sidebar and click on the "DHS Certificate" shown. You'll see what Crappy Nappy thinks of those who believe in Limited Government and Constitutional Rights. Therefore,…
On: 04/19/09 10:25
A Bad Time To Call
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Conservatism Today
Drew at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System was in a foul mood as he took a call from a guy with the Republican party while he was doing his taxes…
On: 04/14/09 05:46
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:
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.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
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
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
