Monthly Archives: August 2007

Neo-Socialism Destroying England

Posted on by

Cal Thomas waxes philosophic on England’s citizens fleeing the decaying ruins of their country in this piece courtesy of RCP:

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND — Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.

The figures, making headlines in London newspapers, tell only part of the story. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there, or the thousands unknown to the government. Britain’s Office of National Statistics reports that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that have become home to large numbers of immigrants, thereby altering the character of neighborhoods that have remained unchanged for generations.

Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. Officials say they do not wish to “offend” others.

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are about to be granted “amnesty” to stay in Britain. The government’s approach is similar to that pursued by President Bush, who failed to win congressional approval for his amnesty plan. In Britain it appears likely to succeed. Migrants will be granted immediate access to many benefits, including top priority for council housing. Taxpayers will foot the bill.

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, called the policy a “stealth amnesty.” Again, in a comment reminiscent of the debate in America, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: “This is yet another example of the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. If you break British law for long enough, you acquire rights not penalties.”

Theo Sparks points us to this story from the Daily Mail:

he number of households in which nobody works for a living rose to more than three million this summer, official figures revealed yesterday.

Among them were a growing number of lone parent families – the first increase in the figure for single parent homes entirely dependent on benefits in five years.

The statistics point towards a failure for Labour’s policy of spending billions on benefits, childcare and incentive schemes intended to persuade those without jobs – and single mothers in particular – into employment.

The figure of three million workless homes is particularly bleak because it includes only those where there is someone of working age – defined as between 18 and 65 whether claiming a disability or not, but excluding students.

Last month the Whitehall spending watchdog attacked ministers for their failure to reduce workless numbers.

The National Audit Office warned that those living in workless households are at risk of permanent joblessness and poverty and face falling into a spiral of ill-health and crime.

Yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics show the number of men and women of working age who live in homes where nobody has a job has risen to 4,348,000, the highest since 1999.

Lionheart has a powerful post up about the ravages of the Pakistani Muslim dominated drug trade on his home town, and the inaction of British authorities that makes it possible.

The Times On-line has reported that children are being taken from their parents, unjustly, by the state to meet target numbers set by the state:

Record numbers of young children are being taken from their parents and adopted – sometimes unjustly – to meet government targets, it is claimed today.

Each year some 1,300 babies under a month old are placed in care before adoption, compared with 500 when the Government came to power, BBC Radio 4’s Face the Facts claims today.

The programme is told that there are now more than 100 cases of possible miscarriages of justice in which children have been forcibly or unjustly adopted.

It says that the number of parents in England who have lost their children, despite insufficient evidence that they were causing them harm, has reached record levels.

One reason, according to social workers, is that they are under pressure to meet government adoption targets – in line with ministers’ policy for more children in care to be adopted.

At the same time, it is claimed, parents are not always given a proper chance to challenge adoptions because of the short time limit for appeals and the secrecy of the family courts. Lawyers say that hearings in private fuel parents’ sense of injustice and can in some cases breed bad practice, preventing them from properly defending themselves.

Sarah Harman, a family law solicitor, said: “Secrecy breeds bad practice, it breeds suspicion. It feeds parents’ sense of injustice when they have their children removed that they’re not able to talk about it. They’re not able to air their grievances. Children have been removed from their families unjustly. There’s no two ways about that.”

A social work manager with 25 years’ experience in child protection added that parents had little chance of getting a hearing and overturning a decision made by the authorities.

The manager told the BBC: “People will find that their children have been removed and freed for adoption without them having had a proper chance to defend themselves and their families and their children.”

It’s almost as if pursuing progressive social policies creates more problems than they solve. Hmmm.

England needs another Thatcher!

Why are New York Newspapers Hampering the Nixzmary Brown Case?

Posted on by

Nixzmary Brown was a little girl here in New York who was tortured for years and finally murdered by the degenerate wife beating child molester Caesar Rodriguez. The mother, an unassimilated immigrant who needed a translator at trial, was no prize either. She sat by as the seven year old was bound to chairs, sexually assaulted, and literally starved half to death before the man she so desperately loved murdered the girl in a savage attack. These two people need to be punished for their disgusting crimes.

And right now reporters from The New York Times and The NY post are hampering their prosecution. The question is why? From CSB:

The cases against Cesar Rodriguez and Nixaliz Santiago took another strange turn today as prosecutors attempted to subpoena two reporters who spoke with the defendants shortly after they were arrested and charged with killing Nixzmary Brown.

In separate jailhouse interviews conducted at Riker’s Island, both Rodriguez and Santiago related the events of that night to reporters.

[…]

Even though prosecutors have police interviews where Cesar details, in cold detail, what happened that night, defense attorneys have already begun to argue that the police questioned the him without giving him proper access to an attorney.

In Santiago’s case, her lawyers claim that police fed her the story she gave during police questioning, worried that they would not let her see her other children.

The two newspapers, The New York Times and The New York Post both are fighting the subpoenas, claiming that if reporters are required to speak about what they are told in interviews, that it could jeopardize their ability to cover future stories. It is believed that if people are worried that reporters will divulge information they learned in interviews that they will be more hesitant to speak with reporters.

Disgusting. These reporters are putting the image of reporting as “the noble profession” they’ve been cultivating before their civic and moral responsibilities. Read the whole post, which includes contact info for those of you who want to tell these two papers exactly what you think of their decision to put pretension ahead of justice for a seven year old murder victim.

So why are these reporters hampering the prosecution? The answer is simple: they care more about what their colleagues think of them than about that poor little girl.

The Loyalist Party:Hope for America or America’s BNP?

Posted on by

I actually briefly met the Loyalist Party organizers for New York last April at the Rally Against Islamofascism and was impressed with their patriotism, realism and energy, but I had some reservations about the presentation of their message. Controlling our borders and confronting Islamic Imperialism are both laudable goals, petitioning to have Islam de-classified as a religion seems more counter productive to ensuring American freedom. After all, the Loyalist are essentially advocating giving the government (or really the mob) the authority to decide what will be a sanctioned religion.

Like in red China.

The Loyalists also confuse being opposed to Islamic imperialism with being opposed to Muslims in general. No Muslim is allowed to join the party even those who are willing to fight against Wahhabism or those more open to American society like Sufis. This is a mistake, there are Muslims who wish for reform and modernization. There are Muslims that are anti-Wahhabist who could be our allies in the coming wars. The Loyalists will allow our allies in the middle east to fall one by one, and American Muslims to slowly be colonized by Wahhabism, by depriving them of American alliances.

I had a conversation once with someone from the U.A.C. where we discussed the Loyalists and how it was too easy to present them as modern day Fascists, an American BNP. Like the BNP the Loyalists are hampered from getting their message out because their rhetoric not only borrows from White nationalism, but attracts a White Nationalist contingent. This person actually knew the people and told me frankly that they weren’t racists, weren’t “nationalist” in the traditional sense, and if fact were just unaware of how easy it will be to smear them.

My problem with the Loyalists is not that they’reracists, but their stance makes it too easy to portray them as that.

The Loyalists are are in their infancy however, and are learning to promote their message without sounding like bigots. If this keeps up they’ll be poised to replace Libertarianism as the viable third party of American politics. I don’t agree with some of their platform but if they really become a big tent party and reach out to legal immigrants I’d be interested in seeing how they evolve and how many people they draw from the Democrats and Republicans.

As of now, I am still a Republican and support the G.O.P. for national office, but I have no problem endorsing the Loyalists for local elections, they are radical, shocking and very important to the future political life of the United States. They are just what America needs to reinvigorate the political scene and begin to have an honest debate about where America is, and where it’s going.

Loyalist co-founder Brian Nordval has just done an interesting interview on Blogtalk radio, anyone interested in this dynamic new movement should take a listen. He does a great job explaining the platform, even the reasoning behind the Islamic religion declassification petition. The Loyalists are sure to become a strong force in local politics if they can keep on point and focus on their positive pro-American assimilationist message rather than the platforms the espouse that will be perceived as excessively bigoted by the American voter.

David Truskoff: Jihadi Propagandist

Posted on by

Or he might as well be, considering that his newest screed, which laughably claims America is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, has been circulating the Jihadi websites as proof we must be fought and destroyed. Before writing his next screed he may want to check out France (each word is a link to a story of the uncontrolled violence in France) and he may want to ensure that his peace mongering essays are objective enough to not show up on Al-Qaeda mouth piece websites.

It must be easy to be an Al-Qaeda affiliated propagandist, all you have to do is reprint what the left is saying and watch the suicide bombs roll in.

America is the Greatest Country in the World!

Posted on by

And we can prove it by pointing to how the poorest Americans live. From The National Review on-line:

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

In other words, the poorest Americans live as well, if not better, than middle class Europeans and Latin Americans. This of course is due to our free market economy, boosted by W’s tax cuts, and the American willingness to work hard to earn money for what they want. Our unemployment is the lowest on the planet and our much slandered health care industry out performs any socialized scheme in the world.

Take that Commies!

h/t Dissecting Leftism