"My Name Is Dave, And I'm An Open Borders Creep"

Deranged Islamofascist Sayeeda Warsi has actually managed to say something sensible, and so has, naturally, become a hate figure for the political establishment. It says it all that the folks declaring themselves shocked - shocked! - right about now were silent back when she wanted to reach out to actual terrorists. You couldn't get a better example of the insanity of the left (plus the castrato-cons) than that they'll blather on about understanding the root causes of bus bombings, but voting for an unapproved party ? Why, sir, hangings too good for them!

DK detects another brand of humbuggery amongst the critics. The only thing I'd disagree with is the EU angle. No matter how many Romanians come here to rob the stuff Britons just won't steal, the rest of the world is still keeping its end up.

But that's not it. Libs constantly deny that they support open borders, but every time someone calls for immigration controls, the girly hysteria meter gets turned up to 11. Apparently, they support immigration control, just not the type that involves refusing entry to anyone. Conservatives should try that. We should claim we support strict gun control, just not the type where anyone gets refused a permit. Either that, or set up a support group for these people: Open Borders Anonymous.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

This one via Ed

The other day, National Review's Jay Nordlinger was musing about our habit of referring to some benighted part of the world's "humanitarian needs" and wondered when we'd stopped using the term "human needs," which is, after all, what food, water and shelter are. And his readers wrote in to state the obvious: That "humanitarian" label gives top billing not to the distant, Third World victim but the generous Western donor – the "humanitarian" relief effort, the "humanitarian" organizations, the NGOs, the Western charities: It's about us, not them. Bill Clinton's new bestseller on charity is called "Giving" – because it's better to give than to receive, and that's certainly true if the giver is busying himself with some ineffectual feel-good "Save Darfur" fundraiser while the recipient is on the receiving end of the Janjaweed's machetes. The Sudanese government appreciates that, as long as we're allowed to feel good about ourselves and to participate in "humanitarian relief," the killing can go on until there's no one left to kill.

This Post Written By An Actor

Never mind that this is further proof of the BBC's apparent inability to cover anything straight, just think about the sheer waste involved. They hired a bus and filled it with actors for a day ? Hey, the Beckhams might waste money, but at least they don't demand the right to waste yours.

Urrrrgh...

Not sure what I think about this case. Sticking two fingers up to government is always a worthwhile and excellently British activity, still there's something else there. There's the suspicion that if she'd been a small businesswoman from Leeds, she wouldn't have got the kid gloves treatment, but there's more to it than just the class war aspect of it.

Listen to Oxbridge and you could be convinced that day can't break without their input, but every time the wheels come off, the self-same peoiple try and make out that they're John Galt. Enough already. No single social group has done more to make modern Britain what it is than these people, so we can do without their whining on the few occasions when they get a turn in the barrel.

Don't Mention It

While Trevor Philips was taking on all those fascists who want to exclude stuff from the history books just because it never actually happened, his minons were providing the yang to that yin, by trying to ban simple expressions of fact.

Even if you accept the insane PC tenet that there are words which are so evily evil that merely to utter them is worthy of public execution, this guy didn't use any of them. He simply called things what the dictionary does. But no - turning public debate into a game of verbal minesweeper was only ever a fringe benefit of PC. It was always aimed at fencing off whole areas of public debate.

Hey, not to ram the point home, but here's what the Thought Police's spokesmoron actually said:

The organisation's director Chris Myant said they were taking action under section 31 of the Race Relations Act which "made it unlawful to bring pressure on someone to act in a discriminatory way".

Well, firstly, libs: if you don't want us to call you a bunch of snivelling wimps, you might want to think again about claiming a petition constitutes 'pressure'. But. Still. Let's think about what we're discussing here: huge amounts of public money being used to provide freebies for the people who shall not be named. So now opposing a massive boondogle for a Designated Victim group = discrimination. Presumably, if Call Me Dave announced a proposal to give lesbians free trips to Santa Barbara - and who's to say he wouldn't ? - it'd be equally discriminatory to oppose that, right ?

The CRE's position isn't just anti-free speech, it's anti-democratic. If people aren't allowed to discuss what the government does, what's left ? In fact, the CRE's position is so extreme, I understand that Liberty offered to represent the guy concerned, until they found out he hadn't tried to murder anyone.

Still, we do get the perfect example of liberal fascism:

Chris Myant said the act existed to "enable solutions to be found through debate" in which public expressions of prejudice play no part.

Yes, it's public debate, but you'll be arrested if you disagree with them. See ? Nothing totalitarian about that.

(and a tip of the hat to JuliaM)

More Freelance Culture War

At least someone is fighting indoctrination in schools. Of course, the Tories do have half an excuse in so far as they don't even pretend to oppose the whole Gorebull Warming scam - which is a whole other reason not to vote for them - but surely there must still be someone in the party who can see a downside to allowing the government to stuff the curriculum with nakedly ideological material ?

Nope - if you think your kids should spend their time in school learning actual stuff, the Tories don't want to know, so instead we get a lorry driver from Dover managing to oppose indoctrucation more effectively than the whole Tory Party.

In so far as they seem to tacitly accept these outrages, the Tories sole contribution to the culture war is to give a spurious respectability to kook rubbish. Again, it took a lorry driver to raise the question of the government using schools to promote politically-contentious ideology.

This is why the Cameroonatics are wrong. Their whole theory is based on the idea that they can betray the right because the base doesn't have any alternative outlets. But the base has plenty of alternatives, there are all sorts of folks waging the culture war without any input from the Tories. It's the Cameroonatics who are looking marooned and abandoned - if the Tories don't promote conservative values, what else are they for ?

Unique History, In Need Of Some Renovation....

Trevor Philips has rightly been flamed to a crisp for his suggestion that our history is kind of old-fashioned and really needs a makeover. For the 0.0000002% of you who haven't seen it, Laban Tall saw this insania coming two years ago, and neatly debunks the technical details here.

Actually, I see this as a perfect example of history repeating itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. We've gone from Stalin's experiments in air-brushing to the left wanting to rewrite history so a black Francis Drake single-handedly defeats the Armada by personally steering a fireship into the Spanish fleet, then just before it hits he shouts 'Welcome to the hood, M*****f******' and escapes on his jetski.

Hey, these leftists can stop whining about Hollywood right now. Even 'Pearl Harbour' beats the whole 'heroic Turks altruistically destroying the Spanish Armada by attacking some other ships in some other sea' script. Mind you, if we're not supposed to criticise Islamofascism because of the role of Muslims in defeating the Armada, what's the reward for sending millions of troops over here in the 1940s ? That must mean the US has the right to nuke Manchester, right ?

Still, there is a serious side to all this. It's actually being debated whether or not the history curriculum should include bogus stories about heroic Muslims saving England. This is how badly things are going in the culture war.

Meanwhile, as the left unveils its new 'if you don't like our history, just wait a week and we'll have a new one' policy, where exactly is the supposed party of the right ? Where, indeed. Apparently, a strict 'no lying' policy is too much of a hot potato for them. Either that, or they're hoping a bunch of Turks will show up to save the day.

See, this is why the Tories are irrelevant. Whatever millimetric changes they propose to bring in, on these absolutely foundational issues, like whether or not schools should teach ludicrous leftist propaganda, they've surrendered to the liberal agenda. In so far as the Tories have no interest in fighting for conservatives, why on earth should they expect the right to support them ?

Tunneling Out

Hmmmm.... I expect the Reverend Dale is busy preparing a sermon denouncing the latest heretic. Much more of this and they'll have to change the name from 'Conservative Party' to 'Conservative Intimate Gathering With A Few Close Friends'. On the plus side, when the election comes round they won't need a battle bus - they should all fit into Dave's Lexus just fine.

This Month's 'Conservatives = Stupid' Study

All the usual suspects are present and correct:

• Insanely unrepresentative pool of participants - check!

• Absurdly simplified model system used - check!

• Idiotic conclusions drawn from results - check!
  

• Desperate attempts made to generalise results - check!

The ironic thing is that for all the left blathers on about how well they handle 'ambiguity and conflict', you can pretty much cut and paste paragraphs from the conclusion of any one of these studies into any other one.

Just Asking...

What proportion of the folks now waxing indignant about oppression in Burma were laughing along with Ahmadinejad, as he stuck two fingers up to the US ?

Mel Gibson Was Right About These People!

In so far as the MSM seems to have given house room to every absurd anti-Semitic theory in existance, the reporting on events at Chelsea is bizarre. Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't noticed a pattern to the arrivals and departures at Stamford Bridge ? Maybe if they changed the club badge to two triangles superimposed on each other, the MSM might finally break its weird omerta. Until then, it looks like they'll stick with 250 000 articles on how neo-cons control US foreign policy.

UPDATE:

OK, some folks have been left on the kerb by this one. Basically, I was amused by the 100 000 or so articles in the MSM asking how come Abramovich chose to replace a high profile manager like Mourinho with a no profile manager like Grant, who's birthday cards come addressed 'to whom it may concern'. What could be the attraction ?

It's hardly an isolated incident. In fact, in so far as Ken Bates was forced out of Chelsea by bogus charges of anti-Semitism, Abramovich achieved the almost impossible by identifying a form of moral turpitude that Bates isn't guilty of. Meanwhile, our PC-soaked MSM recoils in fear from reporting the blindingly obvious, namely that Abramovich likes to recruit fellow 'friends of the Bronsteins', even as they gear up for another go around with Green Helmet, the Magic Ambulance and the rest of the Hamasholes.

Dr Griffin Will See You Now

Bleedin' foreigners, comin' over here, curing all the diseases....

Yep, suddenly, there's a form of immigration we're allowed to oppose without the left turning up the hysteria meter to 11. We're just lucky it wasn't an unemployed bricklayer who came out with all that.

Let me check the rules here: immigrants coming in for jobs in the 'leisure or food sector' ? Come right in! But competition for the guys on taxpayer-funded six figure salaries ? Whoa! Let's be careful here. Like I said last time this came up, what more proof do you need of the essential elitism of liberals ?

Rush Quote D'Jour

I don't see where the left wants unity. I see where they want no opposition. There is a huge difference between unity and no opposition.

Another One Bites The Dust

Looks like the Tories have finally realised why they're doing so badly in the polls: they're not nearly enough like a really scary cult. Just on the off-chance that anyone reading this is off to their conference, take a tip and don't drink the free fruit juice.

Trouble is, even Ayatollah Dave's own Revolutionary Guards are jumping ship. Hmmm.... actually, thinking about it, the 'A' in A-List obviously stands for 'Absent'.

As ever, it's worth noting that the 'A-list' aren't just some random collection of party members. On the contrary, they were a supposed elite, specially chosen by the Nu Tory leadership. Long serving, genuinely conservative, members were purged and replaced by these alleged uberherren, all for the cause of electoral success, yet now it turns out that they can't even deliver that. Talk about Daveism in microcosm.

Ever More A-List Fun

Apparently, the A in A-List stands for 'accused'. At this rate, you soon won't be able to tell the difference between a Tory Party Political Broadcast and Crimewatch. The Tory face cards keep slagging off the grass roots, but it's not the folks in the shires who keep robbing stuff or giving the missus a good kicking.

No Wonder Mr Broon's So Desperate To Help Out Northern Rock....

...they're the perfect pin-up boys for the excesses of capitalism.

Just Wondering....

How many of the folks in the Sphere of the Blog who are just enraged! at the sleazy Slav shutting down websites, are also supporters of hate speech laws ?

Hey, at least the websites got shut down for actually publishing stuff, not just because the bloggers in question tested positive for a sub-concious tendency to commit libel.

Hand Wringing Now Compulsory

FR calls it right:

So there you have it: actually doing something about the problem and then getting on with more important things: indicative of the bigoted mindset of a thought criminal. Making a mountain out of a molehill: indicative of fitness to be a police officer.

Yep: liberals don't want to fix anything. After all, they'd be out of a job. Still, this does raise a serious point. Here's a test supposedly designed to catch witches racists, but which actually discriminates against people who don't buy into the liberal doctrine about how to deal with racism. Hmmmm... isn't it the left that keeps telling us that being sceptical about anti-terrorism legislation doesn't meant they support terrorism ?

Who knows ? Maybe conspicuous agonising is better than fixing stuff, but should it be a pre-condition for service in the police ? To ask the question is to answer it but, as ever, the left wants diversity of everything, except thought.

Dhimmis D'Jour

And as a special bonus, there's further proof that Islam is a form of mental illness:

The Islamic faith has particular rules regarding personal hygiene when going to the toilet, including squatting, washing feet, remaining silent and limited use of toilet paper.

Still, I'm not against the idea of Muslim-only facilities, just as long as we can have Infidel-only areas too - Britain, for example.

'None of the Above' Is A Position Too

Like Theodore Dalrymple, I'm often surprised by how passionate people can be about nothing. Still, I support the idea of people setting up overtly atheistic schools, and not only because I support school choice, but also because I'm a fan of accuracy in labelling.

I think Cranmer calls it right here. Refusing to take a position is a position in itself. Claiming - as, incidentally, the head in question does - that your institution is 'secular' even while you cleanse the curriculum of any trace of religion is just sleazy. Grow a spine, sciencedammit!

Equally, in so far as our society, as currently constituted, is based on Christian principles, the Atheistic agenda is, by definition, a transformative one. An explicitly Godless society would be significantly different from what we have now. Atheistic schools would give us the opportunity to compare and contrast the two systems side by side, so let the rationality run free, and let us compare the products of Dawkins High with those from faith schools. It's the only logical thing to do.

Outrage D'Jour

And it's a lu-lu. Doubtless, the MSM will be giving this full coverage any time now, right ?

Spirit Of The Age

This case has generated a lot of comment. I can't say I'm as shocked as most people seem to be. On the contrary, this incident is the entirely predictable end product of forty years of liberalism - and, indeed, it was predicted fifty years ago. I can't do better than use the same quote the Bishop does in his excellent post on a similar topic:

You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection.

Cookie Monstered

Personally, I've always hated phrases like 'culture of corruption' - they always seem like weasely attempts at guilt by association. Still, in so far as the BBC loves that kind of terminology, I think we're justified in asking what the constant stream of frauds being uncovered at the BBC say about their corporate culture.

Consider the bizarre case of the Blue Peter cat. Not only did they rig the original poll, but even after they got busted, they lied about why they rigged it. Apparently, they rejected the name chosen by the public as it was obscence. Huh ? Hey, I admit I'm kind of out of it, but I'm really struggling to put a filthy interpretation on 'Cookie'. So think about that: the BBC gets busted, they're under the spotlight, but they still keep lying. Just how arrogant are these guys ?

At this point libs will pitch up to ostentatiously roll their eyes and claim that its a trivial issue. In other words, the left's position is that the BBC lies about trivial nonsense, but we can trust it on political hot button issues. Ah yes! And that's without considering that, in so far as people were encouraged to vote in a rigged poll, that surely qualifies as fraud.

But that's not even it. MSM arrogance is proverbial, but the BBC deciding that only fully-trained and licensed mejah people are qualified for dangerous cat naming missions - that's a new low.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

While Belgium has somehow managed to survive 100 government-free days without any outbreaks of cannibalism, or plagues of locusts, Steyn points out an even more extreme case:

And then there’s Somalia, where, as Professor Peter Leeson of George Mason University points out, functioning government collapsed in 1991. And yet in the 16 years since, by almost every measurable indicator, life has improved: extreme poverty down 20%, infant mortality down 24%, access to health facilities up 25%, measles fatalities down 30%, maternal mortality down over 30%. I hate to sound like a fainthearted moderate squish, but even we small-government conservatives don’t usually have anything quite so drastic as the Somali model in mind. Still, strictly on the empirical evidence, the no-government solution is working out a lot better than the previous three decades of Afro-socialism.

Big Enormous Shocker!

Over in the US, some folks are still dealing with the fall out from the 'Rathergate' document fraud scandal. Not all of them thoguh - some have moved on to pastures new:

Rome Hartman, a former executive producer of “CBS Evening News” who now works for the BBC, said...

But of course....

Official: Public Sector Employees Are Weak-Minded Fools

Hey, that's not me, that's their own union:

Nine council workers have lost their jobs for spending too long on the internet auction site eBay.

Three were sacked and six resigned after managers at Neath Port Talbot council found some staff were spending up to two hours a day on the website.

Union officials have blamed bosses for "putting temptation in their way" - by allowing access to the internet.

UPDATE:

Down in the comments, Ross points out the inevitable.

Well, That Depends What The Meaning Of 'Extremist' Is

The 'Jeremy Vine Show' long ago jumped the shark in terms of taste and balance, but today's edition was special. Stand in host Julian Worricker administered the full Lewinsky to his guest, loveable Oirish Jack-The-Lad Gerry Adams.

Hearing a journalist, let alone one from the 'impartial BBC', banter with a murderous scumbag would be hard to take at the best of times, but consider the treatment handed out to a certain other well-known nationalist. The BBC almost never interviews Nick Griffin, and even then only under the journalistic equivalent of a level four quarantine. What's more, the BBC justifies refusing to cover legitimate news stories by the apparently all important requirement not to publicise anything that might help the BNP.

True, Nick Griffin's never called off the BNP's bombing campaign, but then again, they've never actually blown anything up in the first place, let alone killed thousands of people. Jovial Gerry meanwhile has agreed to stop killing people provided the government gives him everything he wants - truly, he is the Ghandi de nos jours.

Excellent!

Apparently, the Great British Public still has some political nous, after all.

Speaking personally, I've finally worked out what it is that grates so much about the Tory line. What it boils down to is that the argument that Brown is so hideously evil that we should overlook Cameron's personal and professional shortcomings and help him win power so he can... carry out the same policies as Brown, but differently.

Well, I'm convinced.

Coulter D'Jour

On healthcare:

As long as we're studying the health care systems of various socialist countries, are we allowed to notice that doctors in these other countries aren't constantly being sued by bottom-feeding trial lawyers stealing one-third of the income of people performing useful work like saving lives?

But the Democrats (and Fred Thompson) refuse to enact tort reform legislation to rein in these charlatans. After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

Boo Hoo!

Not exactly refuting the image of the Nu Tories as a bunch of entitled wimps, you know who has an article in the Telegraph complaining that Gordon Brown is playing to win. The rotter!

This is presumably as opposed to the wimpy non-politics practised by the Tories. Still, you have to admit, the country can't hardly afford to lose people who make well-reasoned arguments like this:

In other words, the Conservative Party faces a Goebbels-esque onslaught of "total war". At least the Tories know now what they are up against and can plan accordingly.

Yes, Gordon Brown is a Nazi. I told you these folks argued like libs.

Except it turns out that Gordon Brown is also Stalin:

A few weeks ago, Tory foreign affairs spokesman Keith Simpson circulated his annual summer reading list to Conservative MPs.

The first two books on the list were Tom Bower's biography of Gordon Brown and Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin.

You know, if you're a member of a party that issues approved reading lists, you probably want to avoid the Stalin comparisons.

Their close proximity on the list was no coincidence. It was former Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull who first accused Gordon Brown of "Stalinist ruthlessness" and a "cynical view of mankind and his colleagues".

Since when have conservatives complained of people having a cynical view of humanity ? Ditto, when did a load of twittering Metropolitan wheenies all adopting the same stupid talking point become an argument in its favour ?

The whole thing is like that. Consider the chutzpah of a member of the Cult of Dave charging that Brown will 'stop at nothing to gain a short-term party political advantage'. And that's without suggesting in the self-same article that the Tories fortunes can be turned round by Andy Coulson. Who ? Cameron's new director of communications, of course. See, it's all about the deep, philosophical underpinnings.

Civil Liberties Campaigns ? It's All A Shami

So farewell then, David Copperfield. In retrospect, it stands to reason that he wouldn't have outed himself until after he'd finished digging an escape tunnel, except not really.

Copperfield was never a bomb thrower, an ideologue or an activist. True, there was a vaguely social conservative point to some of his posts, but compared to the agenda-driven nonsense emanating from some of the other players in the legal system, this was very thin gruel.

Of course, we should never underestimate the ability of the left's Offense Mining Squad to find something objectionable even in a Christmas cracker, but the point is that Copperfield was no political firebrand, he was a public servant, writing about how a public service goes about serving the public. In a democratic society, the mere act of writing about how the government goes about its work should not place a man in danger of losing his livelihood, and that goes double where those overtly pushing more politically palatable messages are given somewhat more latitude.

All of which is by way of saying that the persecution of people who question the official figures for tractor production is far more offensive to the spirit of liberty than anything to do with counter-terrorism, yet the supposed civil liberties campaigners metaphorically chaining themselves to the railings outside Tora Bora have nothing to say about the naked suppression of free speech. So screw them.

Next Talking Point: Lack Of Recycling Facilities In Baghdad

Now it looks like America is going to win in Iraq, libs have decided that security is all very well and good, but the war is lost unless there's a political solution. In other words, the Iraqis need to sort out their sleazy and ineffectual system of government, and develop the kind of efficient and incorruptible system we have in the Anglosphere.

Hmmmm.... maybe we could send Mandelson and Cherie out there to give them a few tips.

Meanwhile, Ann the Great reminds us that things were a little different back in the day....

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

Come to think of it: John Kerry and Jimmy Carter ? If those two are offered as examples of what democracy produces, it's no wonder the Iraqis are leery about the whole thing.

Apparently, the left has decided to base its strategy on Monty Python's Black Knight. The invasion will be a blood bath! Chop. There's no political progress! Slice. There's no security! Slash

It wouldn't be so bad, but judging by the MSM, we're required to treat each new condition as though it isn't the seventy-third time the left has moved the goalposts. And that's without considering what it says about the left that their whole strategy is based on finding some form of words to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

Why do radical imams seek to convert young Canadian, British and even American men and women in their late teens and twenties? Because they understand that when you raise a generation in the great wobbling blancmange of Deval Patrick cultural relativism – nothing is any better or any worse than anything else; if people are “mean and nasty” to us, it’s only because we didn’t sing enough Barney the Dinosaur songs at them – in such a world a certain percentage of its youth will have a great gaping hole where their sense of identity should be. And into that hole you can pour something fierce and primal and implacable

Or, to return to a point made yesterday, for all the talk of how fighting jihadism only makes more jihadis, it's modern liberalism, in all its shoulder-shrugging, post-modern glory, that seems to be creating actual jihadists.

If Libs Paid As Much Attention To Victoria Climbe When She Was Still Alive, She'd Be In Secondary School About Now

At least social workers' super-charged enthusiasm for abducting kids means lives will be saved, even at the expense of massive collateral damage.

Oops.

Let me say I was just shocked when I saw those figures. But seriously - consider what it all means. Social workers are behaving like caricature salesmen, doubtless complete with hard fought 'Abductor of the Month' contests, yet they still manage to leave more kids in harm's way.What can it all mean ?

Apparently, hiring people to assess families who hate the traditional family works about as well as hiring a driver who thinks the laws on drink-driving are a statist intrusion on his individual sovereignty.

But there's the other thing. Some critics say that the problem is that the system is set up to financially reward social workers who destroy innocent families. No, the problem is that the system recruits people deviant enough to destroy innocent families for financial reward. But don't call them scum or they'll get get offended.

Cult of Dave Unveils Nu Talking Point: You're Nuts!

While the Tories ostentatiously wrinkle their nose in disgust at anyone who suggests, say, giving home owners the right to defend themselves, we've got another chance to see Cameron's caring, sharing party in action.

Yep, even three election victories won't stop you being shived by the Cameroonatics. I guess calling Lady Thatcher senile counts as sophisticated argumentation in the Nu Tory party. Honestly - this is how liberals argue.

Can we check the scorecard here ? Apparently, traditional conservatives, the Conservative Party grass roots and just about everybody else on the right are too nasty to succeed in British politics, but trying to smear your critics as insane ? Why, sir, that's the very epitome of constructive opposition.

The Lib Dums: Objectively Pro-Blagger

Further rebutting the image of libs as cop-hating nutters, an MP for the Treason Party has gone after the cops who took down a pair of armed robbers. Doubtless, she's not 'anti-police', she's just 'anti-police arresting anyone'.

"We Want To See More Anguish"

You know what's most annoying about libs ? Everything. But if I had to choose one thing, it's would be their constant insistence that holding liberal principles in modern Britain is exactly like being a dissident in Soviet Russia. Please - telling Jew jokes at the Hamas Annual Dinner takes more courage.

The latest example of liberals lauding each other for heroically yapping the party line is the Indie's hagiographic profile of terrorist groupie Shami Chakrabarti. It's great to see that she's finally found an issue on the right scale for her world view - of which, more later - but as for the rest....mearrrrgh!

Shami Chakrabarti is squirming as we end our interview. "I feel as if I just shopped a friend," she says. That this champion of individual rights over the might of the state would ever turn into a rat, a stoolie, a blower or a grass seems preposterous.

Yep, Little Miss Not-Anti-Police takes the same position on helping the police as is recommended by gansta rappers.

Since she joined the civil rights group Liberty in 2001, on the day before 9/11, this tiny, determined, second-generation immigrant has been one of the biggest irritants for New Labour's authoritarians this side of Afghanistan's Tora Bora caves.

Yowser! She really is stuck in September 10.

It's not that she's spouting fiery rhetoric of the sort heard during peace protests, climate change camps or anti-globalisation riots.

No, she just enables the lunatic fringe.

I get no sense that an army of activists is ready to follow her on to the streets, chanting slogans such as "Give us liberty or give us death".

I guess that's the closest we'll ever get to an acknowledgement that there is, to a rough approximation, no public support whatsoever for Liberty's vile, pro-terrorist drivel. Fortunately, Liberty - the touchy-feely, human rights group - doesn't need to soil itself dealing with actual members of the public. Nope, they take the direct route:

Chakrabarti, 38, is very much part of the establishment, a former Home Office lawyer and member of the board of governors of the British Film Institute who was made a CBE in the Queen's birthday honours this year.

Yep, final proof of the kabuki theatre nature of the government's anti-terrorism policy, based as it is on headline-grabbing initiatives which, gosh darn it, keep getting blocked by non-adversarial lawsuits from lunatic fringe groups like Liberty.

Indeed, she likes to stress the things that she's not against. "I'm not anti-American," she says, twice, perhaps mistaking my Canadian accent.

Like I keep saying, conservatives should try that - we should claim we're not 'anti-lawyer', we just think you should be allowed to kill them with impunity.

Then a while later: "I'm not anti-police; I'm anti-police state."

Further proof that liberal ideology is driven by bumper stickers. What exactly does it mean to say that you're 'anti-police state' ? Who isn't ? If nothing else, could these people at least stop yapping about how nuanced they are ?

She's not even anti-killing, pointing out that it's allowed, in tightly constrained circumstances, under the global human rights framework that emerged after the Second World War.

You know, if a conservative based his legal philosophy on a document produced in the 1940s, he'd be accused of wanting to bring back the days of 'no Irish, no blacks, no dogs'. I guess traditional values aren't so bad after all.

Of course, libs need to argue by quoting hoary, old bits of post-war nonsense - once they get pinned down to the specifics of what they really believe, their support tends to drop off, so it's either pillaging the History Channel, or outright lying - as exemplified next:

But what isn't allowed, ever, is torture, she says. "It's unforgivable."

Hence the latest friction between Liberty and the Government. Britain intervened last month in a case before the European Court of Human Rights which, if it goes Whitehall's way, would make torture at least excusable if not forgivable. "The British Government is trying to persuade the court that, in the context of deportation, the absolute prohibition on torture shouldn't be so absolute."

Really ? Are we actually talking about 'torture', or are we talking about the vague possibility of torture at some unspecified future time and place ? To endorse Liberty's position is to believe that the burden of proof is on Britain to prove there is no possibility of terrorists being tortured - a logical, let alone legal, absurdity.

That's without considering other issues. Consider that the underlying assumption of Liberty's position is an essentially Victorian one, namely that anywhere that doesn't fly the Union Flag is a barbaric hellhole. Ditto, surely the right of countries to control their own borders is pretty basic ? Or, to put it another way, if the 'human rights framework' really meant countries were obliged to offer sanctuary to dangerous criminals, it wouldn't have taken fifty years for anyone to find that out.

The Government might yet succeed; by the time Liberty and other civil rights groups found out about the hearing, it was too late to get permission to put their arguments to the court.

Yep, these are the guys we want running our counter-terrorism policies.

The case, being heard before 17 justices in the Strasbourg court's Grand Chamber, was brought by Nassim Saadi, 23, a Tunisian legally resident in Italy. Rome, armed with a promise from the government in Tunis that Saadi won't be hurt, has been trying to deport him since his conviction on charges of criminal conspiracy and fraud, which he is appealing.

Apparently, the threat of torture is so serious, he's prepared to do anything to avoid deportation - except stop committing loads of criminal offences.

His lawyers contend that the Tunisian promise is unenforceable, and that torture is a matter of daily routine in the North African state, where Saadi, the brother of a suicide bomber, has been convicted, in absentia, of terrorism.

The left's new position: you can't trust the wogs.

"It would reopen the Chahal problem," says Chakrabarti, referring to a 1996 ruling by the court that the possibility of torture could never be balanced against other issues, such as the threat to national security that a prisoner might pose.

Or, to put it another way, no amount of innocent deaths can justify a known terrorist being inconvenienced.

You can understand why these people feel the need to lie about what they believe.

Karamjit Singh Chahal, a suspected Sikh separatist, feared he would be tortured if Britain returned him to India. The court agreed. "This is the seminal judgement on deportation to a place of torture," she says.

'Separatist' ? Is that in the sense of separating people's limbs from their bodies ? Victimhood poker strikes again. Libs in general, and the BBC in particular, slobber over the Subcontinent, but when it comes to protecting explosively-minded psychos, suddenly the world's largest democracy is 'a place of torture'.

The 1996 ruling has had far-reaching consequences. "It led, in a way, to the Belmarsh policy." Unable, because of the Chahal ruling, to deport people it thought were potential terrorists, the Government instead locked them up, indefinitely, under the legal fiction that they might someday be deported under immigration law.

'Potential' in the sense of 'convicted', but only by dirty wog courts.

"Then they went to the House of Lords and that lovely man Lord Goldsmith said this is a three-walled prison, because they are free to leave at any time."

Well, yeah! If you're free to leave at any time, you're not locked up, are you ? The only place these terrorists could not go was Britain. Again, it's a basic duty of government to protect the citizenry from foreign invaders.

Chahal is also at the heart of the row over "extraordinary rendition" or, as Chakrabarti insists with a call-a-spade-a-spade bluntness, "kidnapping and torture".

This must be 'call-a-spade-a-spade bluntness' in the sense of 'lying'.

Chahal established that it wasn't enough to say "I'm not torturing anyone". The state has an obligation to make sure that no one else does it either.

So, they're still coming up dry on actual proof that the government is involved in torture, but some other folks might be, so that means the British government is still guilty, but we're still not allowed to menton how Liberty helps enable terrorism. No obligation on them not to help blow people up.

Britain's role in extraordinary rendition – the "turning of a blind eye" to US flights carrying detainees to countries that practise torture, – still hasn't been properly investigated, she complains.

Conservatives should do this too - claim that our opponents are involved in bestiality, only we don't have any actual evidence because it hasn't been 'properly investigated'.

"It leaves a bitter taste. If we don't acknowledge what happened, how do we prevent it happening again?"

So the lack of evidence is actually proof of guilt. Maybe we ought to apply that principle to suspected terrorists ?

The ruling may be the biggest legal weapon in her arsenal, but it is also the cause of her discomfort this morning. It is the last day of her summer holiday but she's already busy responding to journalists about the fate of Learco Chindamo, the murderer of headmaster Philip Lawrence. And she's taken time away from her husband and five-year-old son to talk to me. Wearing a moss-green velvet jacket, she sits beneath a bust of Plato in the library of County Hall, the former home of the Greater London Council, now a Marriott hotel.

See, that's what 95% of liberal intellectualism boils down to: pointless name dropping. She's sitting under Plato, so we know she's smart - and never mind whether or not an allusion to the author of 'The Republic' really meshes with a supposed interest in civil liberties.

So far, so ludicrous. But what's coming up next is too perfect for parody:

Behind her are oak bookcases stuffed with statute books and encyclopaedias dating back to the 19th century. But it's the books on the table, between the latte glasses, that are making her feel a turncoat.

"I'm probably the biggest Harry Potter fan over the age of 12," she says as I pass her one of J K Rowling's heavier volumes. "Yes," she says finally, biting out the words with disappointment. "Yes, Harry Potter has tortured someone. That was a war crime."

You know, I'm thinking that if Sir Andrew Green at Migration Watch gave an interview in which he cited 'Lord of the Rings' as an example of the dangers of open borders, you wouldn't need to wait for a fat blogger to tell you about it. Instead, we get paragraphs on the vital issues raised by wizardry, with the sole compensation of a too-perfect-for-Shakespeare insight into the liberal worldview:

".....There is a strong moral tale running through the books," says Chakrabarti. "But they're not Bible stories; Harry has all sorts of flaws." Still, she thinks, the final book should not have breezed over this central ethical issue so lightly. "There could have been more reflection. We want to see more anguish. Even just a passage of guilt, his reflections about using the Unforgivable Curses, would have been a good thing to include.

Well, quite. It's gets better:

"And, it wasn't even the ticking-bomb scenario," she says. "That's the big question that is supposed to wobble people like me: 'But look, it's a nuclear bomb and Paul is sitting there and he's gloating that he knows where it is and it's going to go off in an hour but only if you don't get the information out of him.'"

I'm still deciding how I feel about being cast as a nuclear terrorist when she makes a surprising admission. "The honest answer to that question – what would you do – is 'I don't know'. The subsidiary answer is: I might well try to slap him around a bit but I would know I was doing something unforgivable and I would expect the consequences."

Saving tens of thousands of innocent lives is 'something unforgivable' deserving of consequences ? And these people want to be taken seriously when they talk about counter-terrorism ?

The ticking nuclear bomb situation has never arisen in real life, but it's often trotted out as an excuse for torture, and has been cited, in milder forms, by US soldiers surveyed in Iraq.

If libs accepted the same level of evidence for involvement in terrorism that they do for supposed US atrocities in Iraq, Cat Stevens, George Galloway and the whole of the MCB would have been jailed for life years ago.

There are other defences, too, all of them earning Chakrabarti's contempt. One proposed by the White House is that it's not really torture unless it causes organ failure. The upshot is that, in the real world as in fiction, torture can be condoned if it is used by the good guys. The problem with that reasoning, says Chakrabarti, is that members of al-Qa'ida see themselves as being on the side of righteousness, too.

It's a conundrum alright. Who are we to say that sawing someone's head off is a 'bad' thing ?

Apparently, torture is always wrong, even when its not actually torture and it saves thousands of lives, but flying airliners into buildings ? It's all a matter of perspective.

You might think that the threat of terror is the great weakness for a civil libertarian. But Chakrabarti is giving no ground. "They're cheapening everything we're supposedly promoting in the world.

You cheapen a cause by fighting for it ? I guess the only way to really defend freedom is to join Liberty and the rest of the nihilistic trash explaining why 'freedom' and 'slavery' are just words.

You cannot torture people in democracy's name," she says, adding: "They are recruiting the extremists and terrorists.

See, it's all our fault, after all. The multiple murders, rapes and, yes, even torture committed by Murdering Mo' - that's just a side-issue, unrelated to the criminality of his followers.

We are the people capable of having the argument with the angry hothead who says, 'Look at these pictures of how my Muslim brothers are being treated in Guantanamo and Chechnya.'

Hey, when you call the terrorists in Gitmo 'my brothers', you've pretty much lost the right to call yourself a moderate.

Still, I'm thinking that if the libs really had pictures of torture being carried out at Gitmo, you'd need to be living on the moon to avoid having them rammed down your throat.

But let's - for the sake of this ludicrous argument - run with the idea that there are millions of peace-loving Muslims being driven to terrorism by reports of supposed atrocities. Then let's see how Libety's claims check out:

Torture at Gitmo: Lie!

CIA Torture Flights: Lie!

Imprisonment at Belmarsh: Lie!

Hmmm..... I'm seeing a pattern here. In other words, following Chakrabarti's own logic, Liberty's bogus atrocity stories help create terrorists. True, the case may not be watertight, but if we apply the same logic to Liberty that they want to apply to the government on torture, clearly it's down to them to prove that they don't encourage terrorism.

"Like lots of British lawyers, I'm firmly of the view you're better sticking to the crime model than the war model," just as Britain did when faced with republican terrorism in Ireland, says Chakrabarti.

....because that worked so well, right ?

"The hawks should object to [the war model] as well, because it allows criminals to call themselves soldiers."

Unless the right doesn't really care what they call themselves, just as long as we can call them 'the deceased'.

See, that's kind of the big difference between left and right. For Liberty and the rest of the PoMO wasters, the war has no reality, it's all about fashionable posturing and preachy sermonising. Hence why we get this:

She remains optimistic that support for civil liberties will rise again. But her view of the future of political violence is bleak. "Terrorism will never be vanquished completely," she says, "The 'war on terror' goes on for ever."

Yes, that's the difference. The right objects to the slaughter of innocents, but to the left the problem with terrorism is that it makes it hard for libs to whine about made-up garbage like civil liberties.

Liberals intrinsic idiocy is a pest and a menace at the best of times, but in war it's positively life-threatening. Still, at least we've got one of them on record now, with the left's real position. Conservatives want to win the war, libs meanwhile have their own objective: 'more anguish'.

What We Need Here Is More Tax

You know what realy hacks me off about the Tories latest descent into ecolunacy ? True, the suggestion that families should take the week's shopping home on the bus confirms that these people are indeed on a different planet, but we knew that anyway. Ditto, the suggestion that town centre shops suffer through parking charges, rather than the rather larger problem of business rates tearing their liver out before a sale's been rung up, merely confirms that these people have no idea how business is done.

Nope, the real insight is in what it reveals about the Tories' world view. Local councils use car parking as a stealth tax, forcing people to shop out of town, so clearly the answer is to allow councils to tax out of town shoppers as well. See, what could be more Conservative ?

Yep - These Are The People We Want Running The NHS....

Yes, You Would

And you know who'd be leading the charge....

I Backlash Your Backlash To Infinity Plus One

No matter how annoying the Madeline McCann circus has been, it sure beats the ten mile long line of lefty would-be iconoclasts penning sneery articles about it. Still, even amongst a tidal wave of dullards, one article stands out for its sheer chutzpah.

Yep, it's The Man In The White Suit himself complaining about the media being obsessed with trivialities. All this from a guy whose election campaign was based around his appalling dress sense.

But that's not even the best of the humbug. Let's hear what he thinks the BBC should be covering:

The BBC's main TV news on Saturday, when there were no new developments in the case to report, was still swamped by the McCann story. The announced withdrawal of a British armoured regiment from Iraq, the deaths of two soldiers in action in Afghanistan and serious injuries to two more, were deemed to be of secondary importance.

Yep, instead of the Maddie death watch, he wants an Army death watch instead. Which is completely different. Bell doesn't want any kind of context here, far less anything equivalent to this. Nope, just the deaths will do him fine.

You know, it'd be interesting to hear Bell defend this. Is this guy really being interviewed (and interviewed, and interviewed and..) because of his brilliant insights ? Apparently, there's emoting and there's emoting.

Then there's this:

However this turns out, it is a crime of one sort or another and a family tragedy - neither more nor less. It stands alone. Unlike the death of Rhys Jones in Liverpool, it is not freighted with issues of a gun culture, gang violence or anything else in which politicians might be expected to take an interest.

Huh ? If Bell thinks protecting the public from predators is no business of government, it's no wonder he was such a flop as an MP. Call me Mr Suspicious, but I detect an agenda here.

The shooting of Rhys Jones is 'freighted with issues' (Evil GUUUUNS! More yoof workers!), but there're no lessons to be learned from the McCann case. Really ? No lesson at all, or just no lessons liberals approve of ?

Ditto, the enthusiasm for reporting on soldiers killed in combat, but not children in harm's way. One supports the Left's message (Surrender Now!), while the other doesn't (nonces are people too!). At the end of the day, it's just the liberal media's good dog/bad dog rhetoric being given another walk round the block. Good reporting is that which supports the liberal agenda, while anything that hinders it gets sniffily dismissed. That's all Bell's prissy sermonising boils down to. No wonder he was so popular back in SW1.

Or Maybe Because He Can Only Make Left Turns ?

I didn't have the time to do justice to the Cult of Dave's latest descent towards full-on idolatry, but I've got to say two things. Firstly, you have to admire any group of people who can create a personality cult around a guy with no personality. Secondly, if we have to listen to a guy yammer about the beneficial effects of hard labour, could it at least be someone who's held down an actual job.

Come to think of it, doesn't the Ayatollah Khameron have a chauffeur ? How lazy do you have to be not to do your own mirror-signal-manoeuvring ?

TDL Nails It

The never knowingly SFW TDL on the movie biz:

In fact T.I.F.F CEO Piers Handling (we have reached pretentious name overload) opined that "A lot of filmmakers are picking up on the Zeitgeist (of the Iraq War)" Zeitgeist, of course, is German for effusive self-congratulatory rubbing.

Social Workers Ask: Why Must You Knuckle-Dragging Reich-Wing Thugs Be So Hateful ?

Crivens! It looks like FR has upset the child snatchers. One of them's penned a rebuttal article that appears to be based on the theory that the only reason the public don't trust them is that they're not nearly crazy enough. Here's the opening line:

The Daily Mail is vile.

Is that your professional opinion, ma'am ?

Everybody, apart from its readers, must know that.

Well, either that, or it's the people in social work who are the unrepresentative fringe.

But the problem is the sheer number of people who do read it – more than the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent put together!

That'll be Option B then.

Many social workers, with their tendency to a more liberal and tolerant world view, prefer to just ignore the Mail and all it stands for.

They're 'liberal and tolerant' - but they think Britain's biggest selling newspaper is 'vile' and should be ignored. Apparently, what she meant to say was that most social workers are 'tolerant' of other 'liberals'.

But the trouble is the Mail doesn’t ignore them back.

Yep, that's the extreme right for you: you can't even abduct kids and destroy lives without someone whining about it.

It feeds the 2.3million people who read it every day a constant drip drip of poison against social care staff, questioning the profession’s competence as well as its motives.

You sure wouldn't want to question the motives and competence of folks with this kind of stellar record.

And I say 2.3million – that’s the number who buy it, meaning that at least twice that number read it. That’s quite frightening really.

Again, this is a sign of the political divide. Social workers are frightened by people reading a paper they don't approve of, while the right is frightened by state-sponsored child abduction at the behest of unaccountable fanatics. Tomat-o, tomat-a.

It suggests that almost 5 million people will have seen the story yesterday about the “scandalous” behaviour of social workers who have told a woman called Fran Lyon they plan to take her baby away from her shortly after it is born.

Yep, platoon commanders caught in an ambush in Helmand Province, murder squad detectives and private equity firms - they all need constant public scrutiny, but the public having a right to know how Child Abduction Services go about their business ? That's just crazy talk!

The piece is written in an emotional, some would say lurid, style, detailing how the woman, “who has never harmed anyone” does not know if she will get to hold her baby.

You know, if sneer quotes hadn't been invented, huge numbers of leftists would have no way to communicate. What, exactly, is the point of putting them round 'who has never harmed anyone' ? Has she, in fact, hurt someone ? Can these people cite any evidence of that, or is it just - and I'm going out on a limb here - a stupid innuendo, included for no reason other than to smear the victim ?

It’s clearly a very sad case but, as every child care professional reading it will know, there is another side to the story.

Well, see, that's kind of the problem, the fact that social workers could be caught chowing down on newborn children and the rest of their colleagues would be on TV explaining that it's the system wot done it.

A side that those 5 million Mail readers will not get to hear.

Hello ? This is better than the guy who shot his parents, then wrote a book about how tough it was being an orphan. One of the most objectionable aspects of the child care system is the way it is shielded from public scrutiny. Say what you like, but the Daily Mail has consistently opposed this secrecy, so it's a bit much to hear social workers lamenting the DM for not being open enough.

Why should we care about what Mail readers think?

Tolerant!

Well, for one thing it helps stoke up real hatred against social workers.

I'm thinking the whole 'off-the-scale kooks destroying families to make trivial political points' thing may also play its part.

The story of Fran Lyon prompted one person to write a blog headed “Save A Life – Shoot A Social Worker"

Hmmmm.... so a leftist quotes a joke completely out of context, then tries to cite it as serious proof of right-wing extremism. That doesn't happen more than every time.

That can’t be a good thing.

So, let's check the scorecard here: jokey headline by a blogger = bad, meanwhile torture, insanity and organised crime ? Just part of life's rich tapestry.

But, for what it’s worth, Community Care readers will get to hear the other side.

Libs are big on Top Secret revelations that will totally make them seem less stupid, except they can't reveal them just yet.

On September the 20th we will be running a feature examining the way Fran Lyon’s story was hijacked by the Mail (and the Telegraph) through no fault of her own and how key facts about her psychiatric history were omitted.

Would that be her real psychiatric history, or would it be one written by a baby doctor who's never, strictly speaking, met her ? Like I say, leftards are big on 'context', but it'll have to be one hell of a context to make having people with no training make psychiatric assessments of people they've never met seem less sleazy.

Some Community Care readers have written in saying they don’t want to read about “child-snatcher” allegations against social workers in the national media.

Fortunatly, I have a plan to stop all that, one I call Operation 'Stop Snatching Children Then, Morons'.

Notably 32 members of the social work team at Bolton Council protested at our coverage of John Hemmings and his claims that children were being taken into care to meet adoption targets.

An MP scrutinising the actions of public servants ? It'll never catch on!

I think Community Care shouldn’t ignore every anti-social worker story that appears in the national media (though you have to ignore a lot of them otherwise it becomes too exhausting!)

Telling the truth = 'anti-social worker story'. Even when they have to pick their way over the bodies, it's still all about them.

Hopefully our coverage of Hemmings – and the forthcoming feature on the Lyon case – is helping, just a tiny bit, to set the record straight.

Given how slippery and sleazy this article is, the one thing we can be sure of is that the record will end up bent as a corkscrew if these loonies have anything to do with it.

It’s at least worth a try, surely?

I return to my initial point: they really think they can get off the hook by going double or quits on the deranged leftism. Just who's doing their psychiatric assessment ?

Mixed Messages

Re: the Tower Hamlets Jihad on the taxpayer scandal, famously moderate Islamic moderate Inayat Bunglawa has moderately spoken out in favour of libraries stocking Islamofascist literature on the grounds that it's written by 'authors who are widely read in the Muslim world'.

Huh ?

I thought we were only talking about a tiny minority of extremists. So which is it ? Is having seven copies of 'Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell' just giving the al-publique what they want, or do the vast majority of Muslims reject extremism after all ?

Really, thousands of Liberals are waiting on tenterhooks for their next talking point.

Chickens, Roost

Hmmm... sounds like profiling to me. Personally, I don't see what the problem is. It's not like a doctor could be involved with Islamic extremists is it ?

Hey, the right has been warning about this for years and the left's reaction has been to call us Nazis. Now it's their ox being gored we can do without any expressions of shock from the folks who've spent years insisting that 'jihad' is Arabic for 'fluffy bunny'.

Social Exclusion ? You Say That Like It's A Bad Thing

The Devil reports news of another family fallen victim to the cruelties of the 'dog eat dog' world of free for all capitalism. Clearly, they need their own team of social workers, a Sure Start centre in their back garden and special Super Self-Esteem Officer on call 24-7. Well, either that of a 24 000 volt reality check.

Whenever social conservatives criticise people like this, we're told we lack empathy and can't understand their situation. On the contrary, using our special Conservo-Ninja techniques - like listening to what they say - we manage to understand these people just fine: they'll keep wasting their lives sitting on the sofa just as long as those suckers with jobs will pay them to do it.

Doubtless, the economically-minded will be able to draw up all kinds of new systems to remove the incentives to worthlessness, but that's just avoiding the central point. Indeed, in so far as virtually all welfare reformers surrender the moral high ground to the left's victimhood hustlers, proposals for meaningful reform will always be DOA.

You can talk all you want about Citizens Basic Incomes and the like, but just as long as we implicitly accept the left's prohibition on judgementalism and pretend every lifestyle is as worthwhile as every other, these people will keep on having an easy ride.

Your Taxes In Action

Stop surfing the net and start working, after all someone needs to fund all those victimhood poker tournaments

Yep

Iain Dale: Privy Councillor

For a true barometer of where the Tory Party is at, consider that the blogosphere's highest profile Cameroonatic has identified another victim group to pander too: people who want to have sex in public.

However distasteful many people may find this sort of gay cruising, no one can ever answer the question as to why heterosexual males (or indeed females for that matter) are not routinely entrapped and then arrested for soliciting anoynmous sex in nightclubs.

Of course, it works both ways - look how people react when you take a leak on the dance floor.

But let's be fair, he might just have uncovered a whole new frontier of discrimination. Either that or a straight guy who hung round the ladies toilets, grabbing backsides and telling them they 'wanted it' would also find himself helping police with their enquires. Let's check the scorecard here: apparently, a guy handing out Christian leaflets is offensive, but only a narrow-minded bigot could possibly object to the fact that when he takes his five-year old son to a public toilet, they're confronted by the sight of a guy playing the pink oboe.

And thus was ended the debate on whether or not Dale was a genuine right-wing maniac or just a shill for the gay rights movement. [1]

But, of course, Dale isn't interested in the detail, he wants to 'concentrate on the reaction'. Yep, he's all about the hypocrisy (see what I mean about Tories borrowing from the Left's playbook ?) Apparently, Senator Craig is a hypocrite for not embracing the gay agenda like a proper homo, but the rest of the Republican Party are evil for discriminating against him just because he's gay. Huh ?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those two arguments are completely contradictory. In so far as the gay lobby has a very specific set of policies they wish to force through, they can't hardly claim that their opponents are obviously motivated by bigotry. Maybe they just don't like public sex ? After all, Senator Craig was doing fine until he broke the law. Noticeably, the only people trying to out right-wingers are the gay rights nutters.

Equally, as even Dale admits, the so-called 'Log Cabin Republicans' (i.e. gays) were adamant Craig should step down, except that was secretly payback for him refusing to support the gay agenda. Ah yes: gay Republicans forced out a gay Republican senator in order to advance the cause of gay Republicans. Well, either that, or it could be that they've spent years trying to distance themselves from pervy weirdoes hanging round the gents and aren't going to let any activist weenies drag them back into the stall.

Come to think of it, where exactly are these right-wing lynch mobs anyway ? Let's see what the left's favourite hate figure says:

If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Pretty vicious stuff, hey ? Ditto, the left's other favourite bogeyman.

The bottom line - as it were - is that a lawmaker has been caught committing a criminal act, and forced to resign. You can pout and whine and claim that the US should be more like Britain when it comes to public sex and criminality in public office, but the state of our public morals and our politics argues against that.

Still, Dale can't even leave it at that, claiming the Gipper 'must be turning in his grave'. Really ? Which Ronald Reagan are we talking about ? This one ?

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

If he is rolling round, it's probably with laughter.

[1]Some will say it's harsh to question his right-wing credentials, but then he has no qualms about questioning the faith of his opponents. It's strange how all the people who claim to be the only ones who know what Christianity really means, always turn out to be liberal proponents of random, al fresco sex, who think criminality is no big thing.

Feel The Love!

The Devil brings us news of the latest entries in a genre I call 'why won't these knuckle-dragging retards vote for us ?'

Extra credit for them working in jibes about the Daily Mail and old age, but I'm thinking: do any of them ever think that maybe the lack of trust may not be entirely unconnected to their enthusiastic adoption of every stupid smear in the left's playbook ?

I'm sure the face cards in any mass movement despise the common herd, but there's something very special - as the Retard-King would no doubt say - about the snarling hatred and contempt in which Tories hold their own supporters. But now the secrets out and even the Tory grass roots are slowly getting the message. Clearly, there's only one thing to do: turn the hate up to 11.

It used to mystify me that while there are people on the left who can rationally discuss the tenets of Conservatism, even the mere mention of it sends Tories off to Tourettes Land. Then I had a revelation. Tories hate the right because we expose them: we expose the fundamental fraud behind the modern Tory Party.

Both the Tories and the left have an interest in passing off the Tories as the antonym of Leftism: you either have the collectivist insanity of socialism, or you have the Tory Party, aka the Legion D'Entitled, the smug, sneering, snobbish collection of over-privileged degenerates, wasters and amoral weasels, looking down their nose at the ordinary, decent working people of this country. The only reason half these morons are even in the Tory Party in the first place is the lurking fear that if they joined Labour, they might have to sit next to a Scouser.

Well, screw that. Conservatism is a vibrant, positive, innovative ideology. Any connection between Conservatism and, say, a worthless, silver-spoon, stoner piece of trash who's never - in the strict sense of the word - had a real job, is purely coincidental. So keep the hate coming you Tory vermin. It just rams home how little else you actually have to contribute.

Empty Vessel Makes Noise

Shorter Cameron: 'we'll set schools free to do the stuff we tell them.'

So, Are We Allowed To Talk About Culture Or Not ?

No, according to the Ayatollah Khmaeron, trying to prove his liberal credentials by equating fears about the cultural effects of open borders with racism:

I do think that people have a very real concern about levels of immigration and not because of different cultures or the colour of their skin.

Yes, according to the courts, ever anxious not to appear ethnocentric about the whole 'sexual violence against women' thing:

AN ANGUS restaurant manager who carried out a string of sexual assaults after arriving in this country from Pakistan was spared jail and deportation yesterday....

During the trial, evidence was led on Rehmat’s behalf about the cultural differences between Pakistan and his adopted homeland and Mr Niven-Smith suggested the accused simply had “no proper understanding of the cultural differences” of a society where women are equal and would dress in a manner where bare midriffs and underwear are often on show.

Seriously, can we have some kind of ruling on this ? Is the whole 'culture' thing a fraud cooked by naughty nazis, or do immigrants bring with them radically different ideas about even basic tenets of British civilisation ?

I think we should be told.

Outrage D'Jour

Just think what those of us who don't molest kids must be due.

Also, They Both Cost Loads And Make People Sick

Over at Ace's blog, they've got the perfect analogy for liberalism:

Once again Liberalism has been shown to be nothing more than an amusement park roller coaster ride. At first blush it would seem that both activities require a great deal of courage to pursue. But roller coasters and Liberalism are not truly dangerous and only give the illusion of such. The courage needed for both are tempered by the fact that both are firmly bolted to a comforting set course that never varies. A pattern that always begins and ends, at the same place.

Plus there's news of the the left's latest faux warrior.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

The great man on Afro-Victimhood:

As a conference on 'Racism, Racial Intolerance, Xenophobia and/or Related Intolerance', it was perhaps misnamed, though it exhibited large quantities of all four. But as a UN Conference Against the West, Zionism and Capitalism - or, in the preferred formulation, 'techno-racism' - it was a roaring success, and, for those who think the world could use fewer Canadas and more Zimbabwes, an important milestone in human progress.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Someone should tell these people, their fifteen minutes is ovah!

How To Go From A Nazi Neadathal To A Courageous Whistleblower In One Easy Step

Actually, I think I've worked out what the left means by 'community hero' - they mean someone like Sir Mike Jackson. Back when he was General Sir Mike Jackson, he was a liar and an edgy weirdo, but now he's become the pin up boy for standards in public life. That's what slagging off the Great Satan will do for you.

See, this is further proof of my theory that the Ladder of Victimhood is matched by the Ladder of Hate. Two minutes ago, leftards were prepared to believe even the most ludicrous libels against British troops. Click onto this thread and feel the love! But now one of the knuckle-dragging murderers has opened up on uSS troops, the left is ready to canonise him - or at least whatever the liberal equivalent may be. Chair at an Oxbridge college ?

For that matter, consider the deeper humbuggery of the liberal reception to Jackson's remarks. The MSM has spent months telling us that Basra was the worst place in the world. Now it turns out that Baghdad is the even more worst place in the world, and those damn Yankees are idiots for not implementing the very policies which made Basra what it is today.

As EU Referendum reminds us, Jackson is hardly blameless for events in Basra. However bad US planning was initially, they learned and adapted. Meanwhile, the British Army under Jackson treated the whole 'war' thing as a dreadful distraction from the business of acquiring cool new toys. Not that the MSM noticed though - they were too busy kerb crawling for atrocity stories. It'd be interesting to hear what Mike thinks about that, but I'm guessing there are only some whistles worth blowing.

Liberalism: Where Even The Heroes Are Girly

As further proof that liberal self-obsession is getting out of control, consider their latest Big Idea: a national holiday to celebrate 'community heroes'.

Yep, we need to 'move on' - as the left would doubtless put it - from the idea of heroism involving actual heroics, and have a day to pay tribute to social workers instead.

You Know, I'm Not Sure This Site Is Genuine....

Walter Duranty reports, proving you can't keep a bad man down.

Size Isn't Important, After All

One useful side effect of Cameron's supa-limp attack on open borders has been the debunking of one of the teaching union's favourite talking points. These people spent years telling us that the only reason Stoner St Comp got lousy results was because they had an average class size of 31 instead of 29. Now, Cameron suggests that dumping 20 new kids into a reception class may have a negative effect and libs have never heard anything so crazy.

Needless to say, Cameron's stupid argument raises more questions than it answers. If 20 is too much, how much is about right ? 10 extra per year ? And is that 10 extra every year ? Where exactly are we going to get the funds for schools to take on the equivalent of a new class every three years ? And, in so far as these people are indeed drawing on public services, either they're paying a hell of a lot of tax on their 'job Britons won't do' or the case for open borders is economic lunacy, so which is it ?