My Mate Dan Hannan Has Written a Book…

I think in collaboration with a Conservative MP. I’ve heard vague rumours that it may even be the most important and influential book in Tory policy-making circles since Margaret Thatcher picked up the Road To Serfdom. But being as dear Dan so resolutely refuses to blog about it, I just can’t remember the name.

Can any kind readers help?

Note: The “book” is, of course, How We Invented Freedom and Why It Matters, and it is available on Amazon:

Related posts:

  1. Don’t Vote For Hannan’s crappy blog
  2. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight
  3. Dan Hannan is not a racist
  4. Charlie Brooker on Hannan: not even close to being funny

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

How Conservative Pranksters Made Idiots of Obama’s Favourite Left-Wing Charity ACORN

A skinny white prostitute and her pimp turn up at the office of Barack Obama’s favourite US “poverty action” charity ACORN (Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now). They want advice on a few problems, like how best to bring over a “couple” of – well, 13, actually – underage girls from El Salvador to work in this brothel they’ve got planned, without attracting too much heat from the authorities. How can they get a mortgage, how should they deal with their tax affairs, how do they legitimize their immoral earnings and so on?

ACORN’s expert advisers are more than happy to oblige, as this hilarious video – first posted at the BigGovernment site – reveals.

Hilarious because, of course, the footage is a stitch-up. It was filmed with a hidden camera and acted out by two very brave young US investigative journalists – Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, keen to expose the dubious moral standards of the radical left organisation. (Using methods not unakin to those advocated by Obama’s preferred leftist agitator Saul Alinsky)

Since then they have struck twice more. First at one of ACORN’s Washington DC offices. Most recently in New York – where, among the advice they were given was to hide their illicit gains in a tin and bury it in their back yard.

A neat little scoop which has already caused several heads to roll at ACORN, and, as Toby Harnden reports today has led the US Census Office to break its controversial links (for chapter and verse see Stephanie Guttman’s blog on this) with the notorious organisation. But is it really any more significant than that?

Well, of course, those on the liberal-left would have you believe not. It’s just another of those typical right-wing smear campaigns that conservative “nut jobs” like Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart have so cynically concocted to discredit Democrats in general and the saintly Obama in particular.

Naturally I beg to differ. As something of a professional conservative nut job myself, I find that one of the hardest struggles of my daily existence is persuading the world that I’m not in this game just to be wilfully contrarian and I’m not in it because I’m a heartless, evil bastard who is never happier than when crushing the aspirations of the poor, the disabled or anyone from an ethnic minority.

The reasons I’m a conservative are a) because I do care actually and b) because I’ve seen the alternative and it sucks.

For a shining example of b) look no further than these ACORN video exposes, which show exactly what’s wrong with practical socialism. 1. Big government takes your hard-earned money. 2. It spends on it an organisations like ACORN so rotten to the core and with values so inimical to your own, that frankly it would easier if you’d taken 40 per cent of your income in a big suitcase down to the nearest housing project, allowed yourself to be mugged – and cut out the middle man.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  3. Why we need more conservative madrassas
  4. Gove v Humphrys: reason enough to vote Conservative

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Nazis: The Gift That Goes on Giving

Tomorrow – today if you’re reading this on Wednesday 14 October – I’ll be giving a lunchtime talk with fellow author and World War II junkie Guy Walters at Cheltenham literature festival.

Guy might slip in a brief mention of his fascinating and brilliant new book on fugitive Nazi war criminals Hunting Evil (in which he reveals, inter alia, that 95 per cent of the extravagant claims made by supposed Nazi-hunting kingpin Simon Wiesenthal were a figment of the old fraud’s imagination). I’ll probably let slip at some point that I’m the author of the fabulously exciting Dick Coward World War II adventures Coward On The Beach and Coward At The Bridge. Mainly though what we’ll be discussing is the enduring appeal of the Nazis.

In the publishing world Nazi Germany is nicknamed “the gift that keeps on giving” because it outsells books on pretty much any other subject, save possibly cats and golf. (That’s why when the great humorist Alan Coren wanted to write the biggest bestseller ever, he jokily called it Golfing For Cats and put a fluttering swastika on the front).

Like many people, Guy and I are almost unhealthily fascinated with the Nazis, for many of the obvious reasons: they had some of the most lurid bad guys (Hitler; Himmler; Goering…), they had the most iconic weaponry (the flak 88, the Tiger tank, the panzerfaust, the Stuka…), they had the best uniforms (some of them designed by Hugo Boss), and, of course, they were responsible for the Holocaust and the war that led to the deaths of around 60 million – making them some of the most revoltingly evil people ever to stalk the earth. (And like it or not, evil is a fascinating subject).

What this doesn’t, of course, mean is that Guy and I happen to sympathise with the Nazis’ policies. Au contraire. Guy and I are both libertarian right wingers – almost outrageously pro-Israel and philo-Semitic; fanatically opposed to anything that looks like Big Government; passionate about liberty (and meat-eating, and fox-hunting) – which means we stand for pretty much everything that Hitler and the Nazis hated.

One of the things that liberal-lefties love to do whenever they want to close down a political argument with people on the right is to accuse their opponents of being “fascists” or “Nazis”. Utter balderdash. The red in the Nazi flag is the red of communism – that’s how closely linked the two ideological movements are. The only reason we think of Nazism as being ‘right-wing’ today is because Stalin very successfully tarred it as such. Orwell understood this game as long ago as the 1940s when he wrote “the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ’something not desirable’” [thanks David Gillies]. And if this truth wasn’t obvious before, it has certainly been made so by the publication of Jonah Goldberg’s thorough demolition of the “Nazis were right wingers” myth Liberal Fascism.

Who are the modern Nazis? Certainly not right wing libertarians such as Walters and myself. Look instead, I should say, to the modern Green movement: the fanaticism; its pagan deification of Nature; the denial of any scientific evidence that doesn’t suit its cause; its persecution of heretics; the suppression of free speech; its all-encompassing dedication to one obsessive Weltanschauung.

Or look at Islamism.

Whoever today’s Nazis are they are most definitely not Conservatives of any hue. This is plain fact and it simply cannot be rubbed in the faces of libtards, green lunatics, Islamists, and other fascistic psychos often enough. As I’m sure Guy and I will take great pleasure in reiterating if and when we have the pleasure of your company at 12pm Wednesday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival.

Related posts:

  1. Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis
  2. Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels
  3. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs
  4. Et Tu, Eddie Izzard?
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Frank Field for Prime Minister

Frank Field’s piece in today’s Telegraph about the difficulties facing the next British government is well worth reading. He outlines, more lucidly and – ahem – frankly than any other politician I have read just how royally screwed our economy is; and how drastically any incoming administration is going to have to cut public spending if it is to repair our finances.

He cites the shocking figure from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the recession “has wiped out nearly five per cent of our total wealth.” This, he depressingly explains, “means the country is permanently poorer, and will take well over a parliament just to restore its lost wealth.”

Then he tells us why this recession is unique:

“In all previous recoveries, tax revenues have been quickly restored. Not so this time. The Government admits that, even with the economy growing once again, there will still be a gap of £80 billion in 2013 between revenue and spending.”

He goes on to explain why the Brown/Darling quantitative easing programme is merely putting off the hour of reckoning when Britain faces bankruptcy:

“Britain is borrowing proportionately more than any other major economy, and lenders have a galaxy of countries from which to choose. When the Government is unable to print any more new money to buy its own debt, the market will insist on higher long-term interest rates. This will not only make it more difficult to sustain an economic recovery, but it will increase the cost of servicing this debt.”

Finally, he comes up with two very useful ways an incoming administration can rein in public spending.

First, through pensions reform:

“A truly reforming government could set itself the task of abolishing pension poverty by building up a compulsory funded scheme around the current pay-as-you-go state pension. It would mean that today’s workers would have to put more of their pay into savings, but they would own their own assets, and gain a guarantee that no one would retire into poverty.

“Such a reform would see the current £15 billion spent on means-testing for pensioners fall to almost nothing over the decades. Simultaneously, the Government should announce that its only goal in pensions was to secure that decent minimum for everyone, phasing out over a similar period the almost £40 billion taxpayers currently spend each year on subsidising pension savings.”

And second, by slicing several juicy steaks from David Cameron’s most sacred cow, the NHS:

“A similarly radical approach must be imposed on the NHS. While productivity has improved by 23 per cent in the private sector over the past decade, in the public sector it has actually fallen. If the same productivity improvements had been delivered by the NHS, for example, the exact same level of service could have been bought for £26 billion less.

“The radical alternative to an across-the-board cut in NHS services is to insist on the productivity increases that have already been delivered across the private sector. Labour has in the past been almost exclusively concerned about how much money is going into a service. The new politics will focus exclusively on outputs.”

You’ll be reading all this and nodding your head and going: “Oughtn’t all this to be bloody obvious?” And you’re dead right. Nothing Frank Field says in the piece is exactly new or original. But what’s such a breath of fresh air – and why so many of us on both sides of the political divide so love the man – is its clarity, directness and freedom from cant.

Frank Field, let us not forget, is a Labour MP. Yet he has managed to articulate truths which seem to be quite beyond the expressive powers of anyone in Cameron’s Conservative party.

“Bribing voters with their own money is no longer an option,” he says.

Yes, exactly! But how many times have you ever heard any of Cameron’s lot try to articulate the moral and intellectual case against tax and spend?

Seldom, I’m sure. Probably never, because anyone who tried to do so would be quickly gagged under Cameron’s “Don’t say anything that makes us sound like remotely like Tories,” policy.

Yes, sure, both Cameron and Osborne have been dropping one or two hints of late about the necessarily tough fiscal measures they’re going to have to adopt on getting into power; on the amount of hurt they’re going to have to inflict on the electorate.

But what they’ve signally failed to do is indicate they’ve remotely understood the scale of the problem. (If they did, they wouldn’t be talking about ring-fencing spending on the NHS).

Nor does it appear to have occurred to them that, though a cut in public spending could initially be a painful thing, it could also have the most enormous side benefits – not just in restoring public finances but also in freeing citizens from the shackles of the overweening state.

Looking at the list in the papers the other day of some of Cameron’s bright new Conservatives to watch out for, my heart sank, as it so often does these days when contemplating our future leaders.

“You lot,” I thought to myself (and I’ve known some of them personally since Oxford) “Do not have an effing clue. You’re still of the mindset which thinks the most dramatic problems facing the Tory party are things like its stance on homosexuality and green issues.” But the public has moved on; so has the economy. I despair, I really do.

Related posts:

  1. Boris Johnson for Prime Minister
  2. ‘Cut government spending and cute kittens like this will die!’ says hard-hitting, unbiased BBC ‘report’
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Why Did Congressman Joe Wilson Need to Apologize for Calling Obama a Liar?

At the weekend I spoke on California talk radio KSFO 560 FM about Lockerbie, Mandelson and other terrible things with one of my favourite hosts Barbara Simpson – aka The Babe In The Bunker. All was going swimmingly until I made the mistake of saying I thought President Obama was a fundamentally decent man, who just happened to have an unusually extensive, sub-Adamms-Family creepfest of disgusting libtard scuzzballs working for his administration.

No one disputed the second part (how could you? items for my defence: Nancy Pelosi, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Van Jones….) but the first suggestion prompted an instant outraged call from one listener. And rightly so, as I was quickly forced to concede. Just because Obama looks great in a suit, has a rich, deep (if increasingly soporific and platitudinous) speaking voice, a wife with well-sculpted arms, an interesting breed of dog and two cute daughters does not in anyway prove that he is a fundamentally nice guy. In fact, the longer he’s in power, the more I suspect otherwise.

As Andrew McCarthy so amusingly put it the other day at NRO’s Corner, “Obama is not Mr Magoo”. In this case, McCarthy was talking about the risibly lax vetting procedures the president applies to the appalling libtard cronies he wants to appoint as Czars, such as the recently resigned 9/11 Truther, watermelon and black activist Van Jones.

“The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn’t one of those things that just happen. This is Barack “Transparency” Obama gaming the system.”

But he might just as well have been addressing any other aspect of the President’s John Gotti approach to politics, which is to say, POTUS gets to be the smiley guy in the nice threads who wouldn’t hurt a flea while his minions take care of all the concrete boots, horse’s heads in beds, and such like.

The fact that Representative Joe Wilson felt compelled to apologize for calling Obama a liar during a televised address speaks volumes for President Obama’s success in portraying himself as a kind of noble, lofty, honest figurehead, far above the grubby business of mere politics. But Obama isn’t. And as several commentators – including Kevin Williamson at National Review and Toby Harnden – have now amply demonstrated, Obama almost certainly WAS lying in this case when he said that his Obamacare plans would not result in US taxpayers forking out more for illegal immigrants.

“I’m a big believer we all make mistakes,” said Obama, magnanimously accepting Wilson’s apology.

But where was the mistake?

Related posts:

  1. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  2. Obama: when all else fails, blame Dubya and the CIA
  3. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Evil, Snarling, Red-Faced Tory Toffs Want to Bring Bback Fox-Hunting!

That’s how the libtard bunny-huggers are going to spin it, anyway, when – as is expected – David Cameron tries to repeal the hunting ban after the next general election. Already, their house journal the Guardian is starting to get anxious about the prospect, as we see from a report today on donations by “bloodsports”enthusiasts to Tory agriculture spokesman (and committed ban-repealer) Nick Herbert.

So how are the Tories going to stop this (uncharacteristically, for Cameroons) highly principled decision being used against them?

My friends at Spectator Coffee House have considered the problem:

“As the Norwich North by-election showed, Labour will have a go at turning this into an election issue—hoping that it will aid their attempt to paint Cameron and Osborne as people most interested in looking after their wealthy friends. Norwich North suggests this attack won’t have that much cut through. But once elected, the politics of repealing the hunting act will be tricky. It would look a bit odd if the Tories were to immediately devote substantial parliamentary time to it given all the other problems the country is facing.”

And they have come up with a cunning solution:

“However, there is an idea doing the rounds in Conservative circles as to how the party could get around this problem. Rather than a bill devoted exclusively to repealing the hunting ban, there would be one that would  concentrate on a whole host of civil liberties issues including ID cards. Hunting would merely be a section of it, with a free vote on the issue. This way the party would avoid the appearance of spending a considerable amount of time on the relatively fringe issue of hunting and would get to frame repeal of the ban as a civil liberties issue.”

Needless to say, I’m in full agreement. Though I don’t go hunting very often, I do happen to think it is the greatest sport ever invented and probably ought to be made a compulsory experience for every child between the ages of 16 and 25 – as a way of teaching them discipline, courage, self-respect, how to read terrain, about horsemanship and hard drinking, as well as steering them away from dangerous tendencies like vegetarianism or obsession with Elf n Safety. (The porkers would have to be farmed out to somewhere like the steppes of Mongolia, I suppose, where they could chase jackals on shire horses).

I feel as strongly about the civil liberties bit as I do about the fox-hunting bit. One thing I’ve long felt to be agonisingly absent from the policy thinking of Cameron’s alleged Tories is any understanding of the notion of liberty. Au contraire, they have hitherto demonstrated almost as much belief in the primacy of the state (and the inevitable suborning of individual freedoms) as New Labour.

In future blogs, I shall be coming up with suggestions as to one or two of our stolen freedoms which the Tories ought – at little or no expense – to be returning to us as soon as they get into office. Perhaps you can suggest a few yourselves.

I still have little if any faith in the ability of Cameron’s Conservatives to rescue ruined Britain. But at least this glimmer of light re foxhunting is better than no light at all.

Related posts:

  1. The Tory test that all Conservative candidates should pass
  2. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)
  3. Norwich North: If only they could ALL lose
  4. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (Pt 1)

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Remember When Ecologists Used to Give a Damn about Birds and Trees and Stuff?

I do. When I was growing up, nature was something you appreciated for what it was. Something whose beauties you marvelled at and whose wonders you were taught to admire at school. You knew how to tell the difference between a smooth and a great crested newt; between a red admiral and a peacock; you studied the habitats of gall wasps; you counted worms; on nature walks you listened to the moan of doves in immemorial elms; you watched botany pwogwammes pwesented by a weally enthusiastic man who couldn’t pronounce his “rs” called David Bellamy.

This all came back to me when I read about Bellamy’s latest plan – under the auspices of the Conservation Foundation – to restore the English elm by planting 10,000 saplings. Grown from the  cuttings of some of the few hundred apparently disease-resistant elms that remain in Britain, they will replace the victims of one of the greatest British ecological disasters of our lifetime: the Dutch elm disease which killed around 25 million trees and changed our landscape forever.

What a hero! And I don’t just mean regarding the elm. David Bellamy is the British equivalent to one of those dissident scientists they used to persecute in the Soviet Union for refusing to follow the acceptable political orthodoxy. In British science’s case, of course, that orthodoxy is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Cast doubt on AGW, as Bellamy has done, and you are considered anathema by the “scientific community”. This is why he lost his 15-year long presidency of the charity Plantlife and also why he was booted out of his job as president of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. You’ll notice he doesn’t get used an awful lot by the BBC these days either. Gee, I wonder why that could be.

Yet when it comes to loving the planet, Bellamy is the real deal. He cares so passionately about nature that he got himself arrested in 1983 for blockading the Franklin River in Australia to try to stop a proposed dam. In the Eighties, he did more than anyone on British television to communicate the joys of botany. This man genuinely believes what all naturalists should believe  that nature is something to be cherished, preserved, and perhaps above all enjoyed. No doubt this is why is he is such a fierce opponent of wind farms on sites of natural beauty.

But how many scientists involved in the field of nature and conservation actually do think this way any more? Passing few. Look in the papers: almost every story involving nature you will ever read has been skewed to accommodate the prevailing meme that it’s all dying off due to climate change and it’s mostly our fault. Look at how the subject is now taught in schools: not “hello trees, hello sky” but “Eeek! We’re all doomed!”. Zoos are no longer jolly places for kids to gawp at unusual beasts while Johnny Morris does the amusing voiceover, but thinly disguised animal concentration camps; butterflies are no longer to be differentiated for all that really matters is that you know that species are in catastrophic decline thanks to ‘climate change (quite untrue incidentally: habitat loss plays a far more important role in this); nature is no longer a pleasure but a stick with which to beat ourselves because of our carbon emitting sins.

So three cheers for David Bellamy – unlike so many of the green movement’s hair-shirt miserabilists – a true lover of nature.

Three cheers too for the Conservation Foundation. If you’ve a second, go and visit its website and see some of the things it does. (Alright so there’s a bit of guff about ‘diversity’ but then, how else can a charity get on these days?). It has helped turn an old sewage treatment plant into a wildflower meadow; it has restored the roach to the Hampshire Avon; it tries to protect Britain’s ancient yews; it wants to preserve the large blue butterfly; now it’s bringing back the elm.

One of the more poisonous myths put about by the International Climate-Fear-Promotion Movement (prop: Al Gore) is that if you’re not with them, you must perforce be some kind of crazy, Gaia-raping, nature-hating scumbag in the pay of Big Oil. Bellamy is living proof that this just is not so. More power to his elbow!

Related posts:

  1. If the NHS is ‘fair’, give me unfairness any day
  2. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  3. Glorious send-up
  4. When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

How ‘Tech-Savvy’ Barack Obama Lost the Health Care Debate Thanks to Sinister Right-Wing Blogs Like This One

If theres one thing President Obamas good at, you would have thought, it would be harnessing the powers of new technology. Hes got the Blackberry addiction. Hes got the Twitter feeds. Hes the most tech-savvy POTUS in US history, who quite possibly wouldnt even be doing the job hes doing now if it werent for his supreme, almost Neo-like mastery of that thing we call the Interweb.

So how come he has just gone and managed to lose the most important debate of his political career so far over health care largely as a result of being beaten hollow by his opponents in the conservative blogosphere?

This is the question being asked by the new media monitoring organization Market Sentinel, in its latest report, pithily entitled How Obama lost the healthcare debate online.

It reports:

Our research suggests that Obama – the candidate who wrote the rules for achieving political success on the Internet – has lost the argument online.

To show this Market Sentinel took just one strand of that debate (comparisons between Obama’s proposals and the UK’s NHS service) and used citation analysis to identify who has influence in relation to the topic.  For the technically minded, this means that we crawl the internet looking for pages which are about the topic, then we track mutual references between people, institutions, entities mentioned in the context.  The resulting structure gives us a mathematically verifiable measurement of “authority” in the context.  This analysis began on August 28th and was completed on September 3rd.  We have sorted the results according to a sentiment metric where the negative quadrants represent hostility to state run healthcare (as exemplified by the NHS) and the positive quadrants show support for it.

graph

Note the dismal performance in terms of influence by the dead tree press. Note too the mighty power ascribed to Telegraph blogs (led, of course, in this instance by the great Dan Hannan). OK, so were not exactly Fox News yet. But if Market Sentinel is to be believed, than two key points emerge:

1. The Blogosphere is now more powerful in shaping the worlds political agenda than the Dead Tree media.

2. Right wing blogs (Fox News; DT blogs, etc) trump Libtard blogs (Huffington Post, Matthew Yglesias, etc) every time.

Look carefully at the chart and you will also noticed an appearance on the right by Michael Moore. Almost certainly the first time in the mans life he has ever been thus categorised.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
  3. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  4. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

How the BBC reported Al Qaeda’s Plot to Blow Seven US and British Airliners out of the Sky

Go on, have a guess. Did the reporting on the BBC’s website focus mainly on:

a) the warped, grisly, evil fanaticism with which a group of young Muslim men callously plotted the deaths of up to 10,000 innocent people.

b) the dispiriting fact that these would-be killers were not oppressed victims of some terrible tyranny but free citizens of a tolerant multiracial country whose state apparatus bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of its minorities.

c) what we really need to accept is: we deserved it and we had it coming to us.

Yup. You guessed it. c) is the right answer.

Here according to the BBC’s analysis is WHY they did it:

“The reason can be found in their own words, writings and martyrdom videos; a simple and seething anger over British and American foreign policy, and an overwhelming belief that Muslims were its helpless victims.”

(So: no reason for them to do what everyone else does and register their strong feelings through the ballot box, then?)

And here is how it reports the reaction of the “Muslim community”:

“Prominent UK Muslims have welcomed the conviction of three men for plotting to blow up planes flying to north America – but have warned that government anti-terrorist powers should be used wisely.”

Note how the reporter can’t even wait to finish his opening paragraph before weighing in with the inevitable clause implying that the REAL victims of this episode aren’t the travellers who must now spend their every plane journey fearing the worst, and hampered by the infuriating nuisance of being unable to carry liquids on their flights. They are, rather, all those unfortunate Muslims out there who now risk being inconvenienced by government measures to crack down on, er, Muslim terrorism.

The reporter goes on to quote the Islamist pressure group the Muslim Council of Great Britain as if it were the voice of moderation.

The Muslim Council of Britain’s Inayat Bunglawala said it showed the terror threat to the UK was “very real”.

“No sensible person can now doubt that there is a real problem out there that needs to be tackled,” he said.

But then – you guessed it again – comes in that all-important exculpatory “But”:

But the UK’s role in military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq had helped radicalize the plotters, he added.

The report goes on in much the same vein:

“British Muslims are just as horrified and appalled by stories like this as ordinary Britons – perhaps more so because it reflects unfairly on themselves and their faith.”

This view was backed up by a couple speaking to BBC Asian Network on the streets of Walthamstow, north-east London, where plot leader Ahmed Ali had lived.

“I think the word ‘Muslim’ shouldn’t be attached to such an activity,” said the woman. “I think the word ‘Muslim’, ‘mosque’ and the religion he belongs to shouldn’t be attached to this activity.”

Her husband said: “There are one billion Muslims in the world, so everybody’s reputation is damaged saying a Muslim has done this.”

Phew. And there was I thinking for a nasty moment that fundamentalist Islam might have had a hand in this devious and terrible plot. But apparently not. Thank you, BBC, for revealing the truth:

It was all the fault of British foreign policy and we were jolly lucky to get off as lightly as we did.

Related posts:

  1. How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within
  2. How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini
  3. Islamists: funny till the bombs go off
  4. British Gas boss announces brilliant new scheme to make Britain even more expensive and ugly

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Van Jones Was Just the Start: Now We Need a Yekaterinburg of ALL the Czars

Hmm. I wonder which of the many glorious aspects of Mother Gaia it was that first attracted President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones to the environmental movement.

Was it, perhaps, his love of fluffy bunnies – especially those ones with the long floppy ears and the sweet pink noses?

Was it the sight of the mighty redwoods in Northern California or the sea otters frolicking amid the kelp off Big Sur or the manatees basking so cutely amid the  shimmering propellors of the Everglades?

Was it the long weekend trips he regularly takes with his pit bulls Fidel, Josef, Chairman, Lavrenty and Malcolm to experience the heart-stopping majesty of America’s National Parks? (Those that haven’t been closed, that is, due to budgetary restrictions).

Naah. Like so many in the modern green movement, Van Jones (or rather Anthony Jones as he was christened: he adopted the name Van at school because he thought it would make him look more “rad”) has about as much genuine interest in nature as socialists do in the plight of the poor. Which is to say, it’s a nice thing to mention once in a while to make yourself sound at once high-minded and caring, but it’s most definitely not the real issue. For hard-core greens, the real issue is the same as it is for their socialist kindred spirits: control.

Van Jones’s only mistake – and this is what has just cost him his job as “Green Czar” – was to be so slapdash in disguising his real agenda. A self professed communist with links to radical Maoist group STORM and hard-leftist ACORN, he made quite clear in his bestselling book The Green Collar Economy that his real aim was the socialization of America.

As Phil Kerpen summarizes it at Fox News:

“He urged adoption of a carbon cap-and-trade program, renewable electricity mandates– including Al Gore’s outlandish and impossible goal of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2018, large taxpayer-funded green jobs programs, a so-called smart grid for electricity, more mass-transit subsidies, higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, federal funding for organic farms, a ban on new coal plants, expanded ethanol mandates, and even a spirited, multiple page pitch for a cash-for-clunkers program–he called it “Hoopties for Hybrids.”

The problem is, as Kerpen reminds us:

“Green jobs are not economic jobs but political jobs, designed to funnel vast sums of taxpayer money to left-wing labor unions, environmental groups, and social justice community organizers.”

Van Jones, in other words, was and is a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

So how come this hard-left activist – barmy enough to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy organised by George W Bush – managed to get a senior appointment in the Obama administration, with responsibility for the allocation of millions of dollars worth of taxpayers’ cash?

Simple. Because this is what socialist regimes do, as I tried to explain earlier this year in my book Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work.

In it, I warned the US of the “smorgasbord of scuzzballs, incompetents, time servers, Communists, class warriors, eco-loons, single-issue rabble-rousers, malcontents and losers who always rise to the surface during a left-liberal administration.”

“You’ve seen some of these types in action before. The John Murthas and the Chuck Schumers. The James Carvilles and the Al Sharptons. The Barney Franks and the Henry Waxmans. And it’s bearable when there’s not too many of them. Almost amusing even because they can act as bogeymen: the whacko villains you just love to hate.”

“Where it becomes a problem – as you’re about to discover, if you haven’t already – is when your ruling administration consists of nothing but these people. No longer do they qualify as light relief. They become your daily nightmare.”

It’s OK, you don’t have to hail me as the new Nostradamus. Making these predictions was a no-brainer because it’s exactly the same process as we’ve witnessed in Britain these last twelve years under New Labour. Rather than having all his cronies go through the tedious and unedifying process of having to stand for parliamentary election, Tony Blair simply handed them their political jobs on a plate by appointing them Health Czar, or Race Czar, or Climate Change Czar or whatever. In this way, he could stuff his new governing class with politically-sympathetic placemen – with the added advantage that they were completely unaccountable to the democratic process.

Similar rules apply, of course, to the 1,160 Quangos which have flourished under New Labour, such as the Charity Commission currently headed by a woman calling herself “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather”, formerly a freelance consumer consultant, but relentlessly promoted under Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown because of her suitably left-liberal political views. She is currently acting as Britain’s Shrill Bitterness And Class War Czar, responsible for fomenting ever deeper social resentment, grinding her stiletto heels in the faces of the middle classes, and smashing the private school system. And a very splendid job she is making of it too.

President Obama has learned the Blair lesson well, having appointed mostly leftist chums to no fewer than 32 Czardoms (31, now that Van Jones has thankfully gone). Glenn Beck, the US talk show host who was instrumental in forcing Van Jones’s resignation, lists them in full on his website. They include a Domestic Violence Czar,  an Energy and Climate Czar (the terrifying Socialist Carol Browner) and even a Guantanamo Closure Czar.

As I suggested in my headline there can only be one sensible solution to this embarrassment of Czars, and its one that Bolsheviks on both sides of the Atlantic will be cheerily familiar. Think Czar Nicholas II. Think Yekatarinburg. Think July 1918. Its the only language these people understand.

Note: The original Telegraph page is not available even via the Wayback Machine.

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations