The man who Ken Livingstone calls a moderate and has embraced has been at it again

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential preacher based in The Yemen, a man whose sermons are seen by millions of people, has once again has called upon Muslims and Arabs to rise up and destroy Israel.

In his sermon last Friday, Qaradawi called on all Arabs and Muslims to be "fighters and mujahadeen" and exhorted them not to accept the "humiliation and disgrace" of Israel's existence.

Qaradawi said that the Muslims will be victorious and that the Israelis will have to go back to "the lands they came from."

Qaradawi also stated that Jews support Israel and thus it is necessary for Muslims to support the destruction of Israel.

So what, you may ask? Why does it matter what yet another extremist Islamist cleric is saying to fellow Muslims? Well it does matter because  Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the Islamist preacher who Ken Livingstone has embraced and called a moderate voice. Someone who believes or even just says that is fit to be London Mayor, let's make sure that Ken Livingstone is given the free time to associate will all the Islamist extremists and supporters of terrorism that he wants.

It was only as recently as March that we had the news of Ken Livingstone reaffirming his stand to invite and embrace, when London mayor in 2004, the Islamist cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who condoned suicide bombing against Israeli target. Here are some more incendiary remarks made by Ken Livingstone's moderate embracee:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

In 2005 defending bombings against Israeli civilians, al-Qaradawi said on BBC's Newsnight that:"An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."

I have also read that Ken Livingstone's embracee also considers pregnant women and their unborn babies to be valid targets on the ground that the babies could grow up to join the Israeli Army.

CO2 and coral

The BBC and their environmental allies have told us many times that the rise in CO2 levels in the seas is killing coral and that coral just will not survive in acid oceans. The trouble is that the science shows otherwise: Watts Up With That reports that 'The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume'. Here's an extract:

'Willis Eschenbach’s post on lab work on coral response to elevated carbon dioxide levels, and The Reef Abides, leads to a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all. If the most delicate, fragile, iconic ecosystem of them all can handle flat-out saturation with carbon dioxide, what is there to worry about?'

So why are the enviromentalists keen to push the threat? The same article suggests a possible reason:

'That lack of a threat is a threat to a human institution though – the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) based in Townsville, north Queensland run by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

To quote Walter Starck (http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:png-coral-reefs-and-the-bubble-bath&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123) – “A never ending litany of purported environmental threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has maintained a generous flow of funding for several generations of researchers. The “reef salvation” industry now brings about US$91 million annually into the local economy in North Queensland.

Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

So AIMS mounted an expedition to Papua New Guinea to examine the large scale, natural experiment that was a threat to their livelihood. They reported in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/pdf/nclimate1122.pdf?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201106) that while the reefs they examined looked healthy, they didn’t like them. The threat has been averted for the moment, but maintaining funding requires constant vigilance.'

Wind farms cause global warming!

This Telegraph report reveals that:

'Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.

Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.

Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost a centigrade as more turbines are built.

This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.

It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.'

This would be funny if it were not so bloody predictable. Just as predictable is that a) the BBC will ignore the report, b) the climate-change fanatics will continue to push wind-power as the saviour of the planet Earth and c) the power companies and landowners will continue to make money off of people's stupidity.


Thanks to Devils Kitchen for the spot. Devils Kitchen also summarises:

' wind farms cost billions in subsidies, transfer money from the poor to the rich, slice up rare wild birds, dice up bats by the hundred, emit more CO2 in their construction than they save over a lifetime, don't generate any worthwhile or consistent electrical power.

And now they cause climate change...?'

Two catwalk wardrobe malfunctions - one I like, one I don't

Ana nipslip on the Runway by Tiresias11


Simon's left testicle from The Inbetweeners

And yes it was his real testicle

Ed Balls talks balls

Fraser Nelson in The Spectator explains.

Israel - the apartheid state

Those are some specific examples of how horribly Israel treats its Arab citizens.

Prepare to be outraged!

Based on http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/p/eoz-posters-for-apartheid-week.html

State of the art robotics - Honda's Asimo

Going through his impressive paces on BBC's QI programme.

Oops, surely she would have noticed? Friday night nipple slip

Ana nipslip on the Runway by Tiresias11

The Palestinian cause is bogus and Israel is not the apartheid state

Pat Condell again... and well worth a listen

I rarely agree with Sir Alan Sugar but...

Sir Alan Sugar has reportedly said:

"I don’t care if Ed Miliband is backing Livingstone. I seriously suggest NO-ONE votes for Livingstone in the Mayoral elections."

Sensible chap... on this matter anyway.

No I Won't

Labour's former attack dog and now Campaign chief, Tom Watson, has said in an interview on LBC that:

"For once, I’m being totally candid with you. I’m saying to you, those Labour voters that are thinking of going to vote for Boris Johnson, hold your nose, vote for Ken, because that’s the way that you will help Labour. Let me also say, that having worked with Ken Livingstone, looking at his interview in The Guardian this morning, he has a beautiful dog. He’s got a Labrador. I shouldn’t say this, but there is an American maxim that when a politician is in trouble, get him a dog."

Leaving aside the admission that he is not normally "totally candid", this Jewish voter will not 'hold my nose' and vote Ken, the smell emanating from the Ken Livingstone is far too strong for this Jewish voter and I will ensure that as many voters, Jewish and otherwise, know what the various smells coming from the Ken Livingstone campaign are.

The one hundred and sixty fifth weekly "No shit, award"

This week's award winner is Rupert Murdoch for his reported statement that Gordon Brown was not in a 'balanced state of mind' when he declared war on News International.

Gordon Brown mentally unbalanced? "No shit, Sherlock"

The danger of voting for Ken Livingstone

I have posted about Ken Livingstone's troubling links with Islamist preachers of anti-semitism, homophobia and more and so may have ignored other issues. From Guido Fawkes:

'Bob Crow, the RMT union boss hated by London’s commuters, has put the union’s money behind an attempt to stop the “Not Ken Again“ advertising posters attacking Ken’s cronyism. He is wasting the RMT’s money because all the evidence is that he is Ken’s crony.

Team Ken have deliberately tried to keep London hate-figure Crow and his militant transport union out of the picture at all times during the campaign. Above is a mock-up of what would happen on May 4 if Londoners “Got Ken Again”.

The RMT boss is trying to get the crony posters blocked, yet Ken’s candidate for deputy mayor Val Shawcross is a member of the RMT and supports their strikes. During Livingstone’s first term Bob Crow served on the Transport for London board he chaired between 2002 and 2004. The records show ‘the chair welcomed Bob Crow to his first board meeting’. The favour was well received, last year Crow told LBC “I’ve never been apart from Ken. We have differences like I have with my brother and sister but overall, Ken’s a good bloke. Give us a shout Ken when you want some money”. Spoken like a true crony.'

How can any true Londoner vote for Ken Livingstone?

'At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its history'

Take a read of this recent Melanie Phillips article; can you disagree?

'Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive - and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.

During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.

Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.

Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society - and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar - government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The 'driving political purpose' of this policy, wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural' - and one subsidiary motivation was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'.'

Do read the whole article and for more about Andrew Neather try reading here.

Word of the day - Tawriya

Raymond Ibrahim makes me aware of a word and concept that is quite interesting - tawriya:

'Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. (Though tawriya is technically not "new"—as shall be seen, it has been part of Islamic law and tradition for centuries—it is certainly new to most non-Muslims, hence the need for this exposition and the word "new" in the title.)

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, "hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion." Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, "double-entendre" best describes tawriya's function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, though the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, "Do you know where Mike is?" You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say "No, I don't know"—but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.

All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute "lying," which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one's spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

As for all other instances, in the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus): "Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice" ("injustice" as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards). Otherwise, it is permissible even for a Muslim to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying "by roof, I meant the open sky." This is legitimate. "After all," Munajid adds, "Quran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf]."

Here is a recent example of tawriya in action: Because it is a "great sin" for Muslims to acknowledge Christmas, this sheikh counsels Muslims to tell Christians, "I wish you the best," whereby the latter might "understand it to mean you're wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration." But—here the wily sheikh giggles as he explains—"by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim."'

Fascinating...

Pat Condell and 'The Great Palestinian Lie'

As he and I keep saying 'It's not about Israel. It's about Jews.' and 'the Arabs don't hate Jews because of Israel, they hate Israel because of Jews.'

When Islam meeets medicine

The Mail back in December last year had a small piece that I still find astonishing:

'A Muslim man who punched a nurse for trying to remove his wife's burqa during childbirth has been jailed in France.

Nassim Mimoune, 24, had already been expelled from the delivery room for branding the midwife a 'rapist' as she carried out an intimate examination of his wife.

Then through a window he spotted the nurse taking off his wife's burqa as she prepared to give birth.

He smashed open the locked door and hit the woman in the face, demanding she replace the full Islamic face veil.

As his wife delivered a baby boy, Mimoune was ejected from the building by security men from the hospital in Marseille and arrested for assault.

A judge in the southern French port jailed Mimoune for six months on Wednesday, telling him: 'Your religious values are not superior to the laws of the republic.'

Yes I know this is probably a one-off, or at least an isolated instance, but really how ridiculous an incident.

Well nobody saw that coming

The BBC report that:

'South Sudan's President Salva Kiir says Sudan has "declared war" on his country, following weeks of fighting along their common border.

Mr Kiir was speaking in China, which is a major buyer of oil from both countries but has long been an ally of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.'

Read the BBC report is there a word noticeable by its absence?

Yes, not a mention of the main reason why South Sudan wanted independence and the difference between the two countries... Islam.

Some Climate Change evidence video that you won't see on the BBC

Uploaded by http://www.climatescienceinternational.org, this is the December 15, 2011 climate science hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU for a better version of this video. Professor Clark's slides are now embedded into his presentation video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM and Professor Veizer's now in his presentation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5zakcprRIs .

The BBC, Israel & Jenin

The BBC are scum,  they lie and defame  Israel regarding Jenin.

Read the truth here and here  then wonder why the BBC and The Guardian lie about Israel quite so much.

Does the Iranian government really want to bring armageddon?

Why is this video of importance now?

The Iranian government recently laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. This doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide. The Iranian website Alef, which has close ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

In a major speech at Friday prayers Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. This was followed closely by Iran’s Defense Ministry test-firing an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile and boasted about successfully putting a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program.

Maenwhile the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi, stated last year that Iran's Safir launcher could be launched parallel to the earth’s orbit, thus transforming it into an intercontinental ballistic missile. The Brig. Gen. also detailed the Islamic duty of jihad as laid out in the Quran for the sake of Allah and states that “primary jihad,” according to some Shiite jurists, can only occur when the Hidden Imam, the Shiites’ 12th Imam Mahdi, returns. Shiites believe Mahdi’’s return will usher in Armageddon. Forghani claimed that Israel could be destroyed in less than nine minutes and that Khamenei, as utmost authority believes that Israel and America not only must be defeated but annihilated.

There are people at the top of Iran's political and military who seriously believe that the destruction of Israel will trigger the coming of the last Islamic Messiah and that even Jesus Christ, who will convert to Islam, will act as Mahdi’s deputy, praying to Allah as he stands behind the 12th Imam.

The edit and translation of the above video is by Reza Kahlili (Copyright: Reza Kahlili) - (The original Farsi version is over one hour long and the makers have stated specifically that there are no restrictions on copying said video. They have also asked the public to distribute the video).For more information about this movie and on the book "A Time to Betray", please visit:
http://atimetobetray.com/

Family Guy before it was Family Guy

'Larry & Steve' from 1996, before there was Family Guy


A later pilot.


A fascinating comparison of some early Larry and late Family Guy extracts.

Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? Does it matter?

Victor Volsky at Israel Against Terror has written an interesting piece, here's an extract:

'Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? Even if he were, it would hardly matter. For his policies are apparently animated by an ideology that, even though a polar opposite of militant Islam, is little different from it in terms of objectives and results.

One can understand why so many people believe that Obama might be a Muslim. After all, his first official phone call as U.S. President was to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, signaling the new administration's foreign policy priorities. His first foreign trip was to Egypt. His first major foreign policy initiative proclaimed in his June 2009 Cairo speech was an extended hand to the Muslim world.

And how about his close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a PLO propagandist and former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat? His rhapsodic observation that the muezzin's call to prayer is the "prettiest" sound in creation? His beyond-ludicrous assertions that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world and that from the time of America's founding Muslims have enriched the American legacy? His sonorous proclamation in the Cairo speech that "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance"? His frequent deeply reverential references to the "Holy Koran" (has he ever referred to the Bible as "Holy?")? His deep bow to the Saudi King?

Even his famous gaffe that the U.S. comprises 57 states may have been a Freudian slip suggesting that the entity he actually had on his mind was the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which indeed has 57 member-states. Sometimes his seemingly infinite affinity for all things Muslim goes to ridiculous lengths, as when he tasked NASA with a new mission of raising Muslims' self-esteem by pointing out their invaluable historical contribution to aerospace science (did he by any chance mean the magic carpet from the Arabian Nights?).

...

But is such overt and boundless Islamophilia evidence of Islamic affiliation? Not necessarily. There is a more plausible explanation: Barack Obama is simply a far-left radical progressive, a member in good standing of a community whose ideology is not all that different from the Islamist worldview. This makes the two movements allies, as it were. Name just about any policy area, and everywhere the objectives of radical progressives and militant Muslims dovetail so closely as to be virtually indistinguishable.

At the root of such harmony of visions lies their shared visceral hatred for America.

Both Islamists and far-left radicals see the U.S. as the focus of all evil. Both believe that America must get her comeuppance. The Islamists call the U.S. the Great Satan, which is exactly what the radicals would call their country were they religiously inclined. But since they are not, they call America a greedy, imperialist aggressor and vicious oppressor, the paramount enemy of mankind.



...

Another point of agreement between the far left and radical Islam is their shared anti-Semitism and implacable hostility toward Israel. Is it a coincidence that Obama has demanded that Israel return to its 1967 borders, which would place her in a totally untenable position and which is exactly what the Palestinians want? Again, there is a slight divergence of ultimate goals between the two: the Islamists dream of destroying the Small Satan and exterminating all Jews, while the American radicals would be content to see Israel wiped off the map and its inhabitants (what's left of them, anyway) merely dispersed to all four corners of the world. But for practical purposes the Islamists and the radicals are allies, forming two prongs of a pincers squeezing Israel.

...

Now imagine that an Islamist mole has been planted in the White House. Would he behave any differently from Obama? Maybe he would be more cautious for fear of being found out, but ultimately he would pursue exactly the same kind of policies. So is Obama a Muslim? Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. But when all is said and done, it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.'

Do read the whole article and spread it around, it's a good one.

The truth about the history of Israel and the attitude of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to Israel and Jews

I have posted similar pieces to this before but think that the point bears repeating...


Let's start with Israel's size and creation on Palestinian land.

Israel's very size at creation was a result of losing land. The first map below shows the land promised to Israel as the Jewish National Home in Palestine as demarcated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention. The second map shows the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders to form Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan, later Jordan, is the Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is the Jewish homeland.

The truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's another map of the Palestinian Mandate, see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?

So in 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” they began the 1948 war and lost.

The losing side did not sit back and lick their wounds, they took their revenge on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan — the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria — now held by Muslim forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the name of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the term “West Bank.”

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950.

Note that until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.


But what of the Palestinian people; who are they? I could quote any number of historians and politicians but lest they be tarnished by being called Zionist scum, as I have been for making this point before, let's listen to a senior Palestinian:

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Read that again: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.


For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva ."


Take a look back in time, until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organisations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that “what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond […] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.”

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons.

First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

The other claim that I have made to me is that the Palestinians only want to live in peace alongside Israel and that a return to the pre-1967 borders is all that they want. Leaving aside the fact that the armies of six surrounding Arab nations tried to wipe Israel off of the map in 1948 before Israel won another defensive war in 1967, the enemies of Israel make no secret of what they want and how they intend to achieve it.

Do remember that on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

The removal of East Jerusalem from Israel and a general return to the 1967 borders is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah/PLO/PA or the rest of the Muslim Middle East, it is but a staging post on the way to the eventual destruction of Israel.


The following are comments made by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya on his visit to Tunisia in early January 2012. The comments were all recorded and broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV:

"I say to you now, in the capital of south Tunisia: We will never ever recognize Israel."

"The land of Palestine, oh brothers and sisters, is an Islamic, as decreed by the second caliph, Omar ibn Al-Khattab. We shall not relinquish the Islamic waqf on the land of Palestine, and Jerusalem shall not be divided into Western and Eastern Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a single united [city], and Palestine stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and from Naqoura [Rosh Ha-Niqra] to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] in the south."

This is Hamas's leader in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, saying on 14 December that whilst Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," this in an "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel. Ismail Haniyeh also said this:

"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."

From the sea to the river, now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, remember that every time someone chants "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they are calling for the destruction of Israel, the ending of the Jewish state. The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean; from the river to the sea is not calling for a two state solution, it is calling for the destruction of Israel.

Two days after Ismail Haniyeh's speech, the Palestinian Authority's Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas leader abroad Khaled Mashaal had agreed that:

"There will be no military resistance."
"The permanent solution is on the '67 borders."

According to Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas had agreed to a permanent solution based on the 1967 borders. However, Haniyeh said that Hamas agrees to a temporary solution on the 1967 borders as a first stage only.

Who to believe?

Before you say Mahmoud Abbas, remember that for many years, the PLO itself promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel. Indeed senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."...


The west listens to and believes what Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas say about wanting a two state solution and a return to 1967 borders because that fits in with their world view of an evil Jewish state stealing land from poor Palestinians. The truth is some way from this narrative but the western media, especially the BBC, just don't care; facts will not be allowed to intrude into this narrative.


So the next time you hear a Palestinian spokesman saying they want to live in peace with Israel or a BBC Middle East 'expert' explaining how Hamas and the PLO have changed and really do want peace with Israel, remember that it's all lies. Hamas and Fatah/PLO want to destroy Israel, they claim all of the land that Israel stands on and the return to 1967 borders is but the first step on the path to destroying Israel and killing all Jews.


Another question that springs to mind when people say that the Palestinians want their land back is what was the case between 1948 and 1967. In 1948 Jordan 'occupied' the 'West Bank' whilst Egypt 'occupied' the Gaza Strip. Were there any protests by 'Palestinians' against these foreign occupations? I suppose an alternative question would be why was no Palestinian state formed in the West Bank and Gaza in 1949? Could it be that Zahir Muhsein was telling the truth?

A line that many push is that the Jews are immigrants to a previously Muslim Palestine. Let's examine that claim and start with Jerusalem

Jerusalem was the capital of a Jewish state from around 1000BC until the Jews were expelled one, two or more times. When the State of Israel was created in 1948, it was alongside Jerusalem as a 'corpus separatum under the administration of the UN.' aka an international city. This regime was to remain in force for a period of ten years, whereupon a referendum was to be held in which the residents were to decide the future ownership of their city. This plan was superseded by the 1948 war when the armies of four or more Muslim states tried to wipe Israel off the map and drive all the Jews, who could not be killed, into the sea. The Arab Legion attacked Western Jerusalem and at the end of the 1948 war Israel controlled the newer western part of Jerusalem and Jordan the older east, including the main religious sites.

From 1948 until 1967 the Jordanians expelled Jews from Jerusalem, destroyed many synagogues and some churches and refused access to religious sites to most Jews and many Christians.

By way of contrast since 1967 Israel has not restricted access for Muslims to the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa Mosque despite them being partly built on top of the site of 'the Temple'; what would be the holiest site in Judaism had it not been destroyed. Indeed the Western ('Wailing') Wall is all that remains of the Second Temple.

Let's look back to the time when Israel was finally formed in the aftermath of the Second World War. This was a time of great population transfers in Eastern Europe, between India & Pakistan and elsewhere; yet only in Israel/Palestine are the displaced still considered refugees. In 1948 over a million Hindus fled Pakistan and a similar number of Muslims left India for Pakistan. Both populations were absorbed by their new countries. In the same region, large population transfers happened when Bangladesh was created. Likewise ethnic Germans were expelled from Central & Eastern Europe and so had to assimilate into Germany. Meanwhile Hungarian refugees from Czechoslovakia and other places found sanctuary in Hungary, Ukrainians who were expelled from Poland found sanctuary in Ukraine, and so on.

Meanwhile In the Middle East 750,000 Jews were expelled form their homes in Arab countries and were absorbed into Israel. Why were the 'Palestinians' not absorbed into Jordan, Syria, Egypt & The Lebanon? The Palestinians talk about the 'right of return' and their right to live in their ancestral homes again. Does the same right exist for the Jews forced to flee Iraq, Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries? The value of the assets these Jews left behind has been valued at today's prices at around $300 billion. A US based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel.

So why did the Arab countries not absorb the Palestinian refugees? In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which stated thus:

'The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.'

So the Palestinian refugees are not permanent refugees because of Israel's actions but because of a decision taken by the Arab League. Thus the accepted narrative that heaps blame on Israel because it expelled the refugees is actually not true.

Remember that I started this post by explaining that Israel lost around 77% of what was promised to the Jewish people for a homeland and now exists on a sliver of land surrounded by far larger Muslim countries why should Israel be further reduced in size? Do you realise how small Israel is? Why should the Jews not be allowed to keep one small portion of the land they were promised in the Balfour Declaration? If you listen to the BBC and The Guardian you would think Israel occupied (pun intended) an enormous part of the Middle East; here's a map to illustrate the truth; can you spot Israel amongst it's Muslim neighbours?

Let's take another quick look at the claim that the Palestinians only want a return to the pre-1967 borders, a claim that Barack Obama and others seem happy to swallow.

I'll begin with a reminder of the words of the then Fatah leader, Yasser Arafat on the same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

A return to 1967 borders for Israel is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah and the rest, it is a staging post on the way to the destruction of Israel.

The surrounding Arab countries attacked the new born state of Israel in 1948 declaring that they would drive all Jews into the sea. They failed and for that any sane person would give thanks but why did they attack were they demanding a return to the pre-1967 borders? In 1967 the same neighbours of Israel mustered forces ready to attack and destroy Israel again, once again they failed and in defeating the aggressors, Israel captured various territory. Why did the Arab countries attack Israel, were they demanding a return to the borders of 1967? Land captured in a defensive war is normally kept not surrendered back to the aggressors but in Israel's case this seems not be the case.

In 1973, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Muslim countries attacked Israel again and were defeated again, Israel captured more land from Egypt and Syria in another defensive war. Were the Arab countries in 1973 calling for a return to 1967 borders?

So despite the evidence of three wars started by Muslim countries to destroy Israel we are expected to believe that now the Palestinians just want peace so long as Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders. We are meant to ignore the words of Yasser Arafat in the past as quoted above but also of current Hamas leaders like Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, who said on 1 Jan 2009

"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

How about Fatah's 1968 Charter:

'– In the Palestinian state only Jews who lived in Palestine before 1917 will be recognized as citizens [Article 6]:
– Only the Palestinian Arabs possess the right of self-determination, and the entire country belongs to them [Articles 3 and 21].
– Any solution that does not involve total liberation of the country is rejected. This aim cannot be achieved politically; it can only be accomplished militarily [Articles 9 & 21].
– Warfare against Israel is legal, whereas Israel's self-defence is illegal [Article 18].'

That 1968 Charter does not call for Israel to return to 1967 borders it calls for 'the entire country' to return to Palestinian control.

Barack Obama should know this history but maybe his upbringing as a child in Indonesia and then as a knowing adult in the church of Jeremiah Wright may have affected him. In case he or you need reminding here are some facts about the state of Israel and Palestine.

If after all this you still believe that Hamas and Fatah just want Israel to return to 1967 borders then here is a question for you: if this is the case then why do Fatah and Hamas incessantly show maps (in schools, on TV, on logos, in government literature) that contain no mention of Israel just Palestine occupying the whole area of Israel and the Palestinian territories? If Fatah and Hamas want a return to 1967 orders then why do they not recognise those borders in their own literature and propaganda?

Here are a few examples

Maybe you'd like instead to read the lyrics of a song played regularly on PA TV that runs:

"Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Muhammad sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Kabha sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
From Bethlehem to Jenin is Palestinian,
Ramle, Lod and Sakhnin are Palestinian.
Nowhere is more beautiful than Jerusalem;
no matter how much we travel
From Safed to Al-Badhan (near Nablus) is Palestinian;
Tiberias and Ashkelon are Palestinian."

You can see the song being sung here. Not much interest in a return to 1967 borders there is there?

Over and over again Hamas, Fatah and others have stated that they want Israel destroyed, Jews killed and one Palestinian state in its place. Yet still we are expected to believe that a return to 1967 borders is all that is wanted.

Many apologists for Palestinain terrorists claim that Hamas and their ilk have no problem with (or hatred of Jews) just with Israel and Zionists. Let's examine the evidence:

Influential Islamic scholars Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious centre of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.”


Here are some excerpts from a Friday sermon in Al-Bireh, the Palestinian West Bank, which aired on Palestinian Authority TV on January 6, 2012.

'Preacher: "Oh servants of Allah, every evil and catastrophe on the land of Palestine – moreover, in the whole world – is caused by the Jews.

"They generate civil strife with their clandestine handiwork, their despicable texts, their bitter hearts, and their abominable intentions.

"Allah said: 'Whenever they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it, but they strive to do mischief on earth. Allah loves not those who do mischief.' This is the history of the Jews.'

Excerpts from footage of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya's visit to Tunisia, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV  was posted on the Internet on January 5-10, 2012. This is a transcript:

'Crowd: "The people want the liberation of Palestine.

"The people want the liberation of Palestine."

Crowd member: "Killing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Killing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Driving out the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Driving out the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Crushing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Crushing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty." […] '

So do the preacher and the crowd hate Israel or Jews?


The above are facts, maybe the BBC and the others who spread lies about Israel would do well to study the truth.

Are you a member of a Union, but don't vote Labour?

Thanks to Daily Referendum there is a solution...

Union Political Contribution Opt Out Forms - For Non-Labour voters of Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW

Are you a member of a Union, but don't vote Labour?  Do you want to stop your Union, giving your money, to the Labour Party?  Here's a little help:

UNISON Opt out form

UNITE Opt out form

GMB:  A form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of any member either by application at, or by post from, the Head Office or any Branch Office of the Union or from the:

Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations,
22nd Floor, Euston Tower,

286 Euston Road,

London NW1 3JJ.

This form, when filled in, or a written request in a form to the like effect, should be handed or sent to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs.

USDAW: You must Email them to request opt out. Contact form HERE 

Note: For all other Unions click HERE

IMPORTANT NOTE: Make sure that when you have opted out that you don't have to request a refund - some of these Unions continue to take your money and won't stop until you request a refund.  You may also notice that your opt out may not start until the New Year.  Good Luck!

She believes in free speech but not for those who she doesn't like hearing

'Raw video from CSU Fresno where a student signs a petition to ban conservatives from radio & TV. She admits that they have a right to free speech, but signs anyway after stating how she doesn’t “like hearing them.” '

Another thought provoking video from Exposing Leftists.

The strangest comment yet posted on my site

I decided not to post this comment as I really didn't understand it...

The Palestinain Authority teaching the destruction of Israel

The BBC and much of the world's media like to pretend that the Palestinian Authority is the moderate face of the Palestinians and that they really want a peaceful two state accommodation with Israel. That this is a total lie is something that regular readers of this blog will already know, I have posted before proof of this but I do not expect the BBC or other media to be convinced by facts when they 'know' the truth.

Today I read at Palwatch this:

'Palestinian parents should teach their children that it is their role or destiny to destroy Israel, according to a cartoon in the official PA daily.

In the cartoon, a mother is showing her son a book with a map that includes all of Israel and the PA areas. The text in the book defines the map as "Palestine."

The mother tells her son:

"This is your bride... when you grow up you will know the dowry."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida,
March 31, 2012]

The message of the PA daily is that parents either are educating their children or should be educating their children to see their obligation to replace all of Israel with a state of "Palestine." The dowry - the cost of liberating Palestine - is yet to be learned.

Last week, Palestinian Media Watch reported that the Minister of Social Affairs, Majida Al-Masri, said in a speech that Palestinian unity is needed in order to achieve "the liberation of Palestine - all of Palestine," meaning Israel's destruction.

Official PA daily cartoons regularly represent all of Israel as replaced by "Palestine."'

 I am not holding my breath awaiting the BBC to ever report such a story as that would place the Palestinians under scrutiny and that would never do.

The UK Foreign Office can just F.O.

The Commentator reveals that:

'It has just been revealed that Matthew Offord MP asked Alistair Burt, Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East, the following formal question: “... what recent representations his Department has received on the honouring by the Palestinian Authority of Palestinian citizens that have participated in terrorist acts?"

This is the (extraordinary) response:

"The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not received any recent representation on this issue. Our officials in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem have not had any discussions with the Palestinian Authority on this issue. As we do not have any direct contact with Hamas, we cannot make any representations about events taking place in the Gaza Strip.

“The Government deplore all incitement to violence. We have strongly supported the Palestinian Authority's programme of reform of its institutions of state, including the security sector. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has made considerable progress in this regard, meaning a more effective government and an improved security situation, with the Palestinian Authority meeting its core commitments under the Quartet Roadmap."

Let us start by dealing with the blatant contradiction between the two sentences we have highlighted in italics. The first is an admission that British officials in Israel have done precisely nothing to protest against the PA‘s incitement to terrorism which it conducts by routinely honouring terrorists.

The second statement highlighted in italics is therefore disproved by the first. By its own admission the British government does not “deplore all incitement to violence“ since it has failed (refused?) to deplore incitement by the Palestinian authority despite many opportunities to do so.

At best this should be a disciplinary offence for our senior diplomats in Israel. If they’re not making active representations to the Palestinians to stop inciting terrorism what on Earth are they doing? Do they think they’re out there on an anti-Israeli jolly in the sun, while they just turn a blind eye to Palestinian wrongdoing?

Sadly, we have little confidence that the British Foreign Office would do the morally correct thing where the Middle East is concerned. That said, we didn’t think it had descended this far. This refusal to even accept there is a problem amounts to an acceptance of what is happening on the ground – and this is a form of tacit endorsement of incitement. If the FCO are not making active representations to the Palestinians to stop inciting terrorism. Again, what on Earth are they doing?'

The British Foreign Office has long been full of Arabists and it seems that the death of a few Israeli Jews is of no real concern to them.

Remind why Israel is called an 'Apartheid State'

The Times of Israel reports:

'JERUSALEM (JTA) — Jewish leaders in Hebron have called for international intervention to help the Palestinian man sentenced to death for selling a home near the Cave of the Patriarchs to Jews.

A letter on behalf of Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, was signed by Hebron Jewish community leaders David Wilder and Noam Arnon, and addressed to, among others, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the president of the European Council of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy; and the director general of the International Red Cross, Yves Daccord, among others.

Shahala reportedly was sentenced to death for his part in selling what has become known as Beit Hamachpela (the Machpela House) to a group of Jews. He reportedly confessed to the sale after torture and was subject to a rushed trial, according to Arutz-7, which cited various news agencies. Palestinian officials said Shahala was not authorized to sell the home.

The death warrant still must be signed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, according to reports.

“It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a ‘capital crime’ punishable by death,” the Jewish leaders write in their letter. ” The very fact that such a ‘law’ exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.

“What would be the reaction to a law in the United States, England, France, or Switzerland, forbidding property sales to Jews? Actually, less than one hundred years ago, such acts were legislated and practiced, known as the infamous ‘Nuremberg laws.”...'

I await the shrieks of horror from the people who decry any act of Israel's that seems in any way questionable. I await the BBC coverage. I suspect that I will await both in vain.

Why so coy Jack Straw?

The British media is reporting that Abdel Hakim Belhadj is alleging that the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw allowed his rendition to Libya to happen. Jack Straw is refusing to comment.

Remember that last year Last year Jack Straw denied any knowledge of any such the operation:

'The position of successive foreign secretaries, including me, is that we were opposed to unlawful rendition, opposed to torture or similar methods, and not only did we not agree with it, we were not complicit in it, nor did we turn a blind eye to it.'

More recently Jack Straw admitted that he signed off on the decision to capture Abdel Hakim Belhadj and hand him over to Colonel Gaddafi's Libyan regime. Oddly Jack Straw only remembered this once the Foreign Office had shown Jack Straw his signature authorising them to arrange the abduction in 2004.

Why did Jack Straw sign that document? Did the Labour British government collude in rendition and torture contrary to their vehement denials as recently as last year? What is the truth behind the relationship between senior Labour ministers and the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi?Do any other former Labour ministers have questions to answer in this regard: Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson etc.?

The treatment of dogs and the American political process

When it was reported that, when much younger, Mitt Romney had once put his dog on the roof of his car the US media went into one of its anti-Republican frenzies.However when it is reported that Barack Obama has admitted eating dog when younger, not so much media attention. Need I ask why?

BBC at it again

I know I have mentioned before the BBC's habit of giving a Labour spokesman airtime on the 7pm Radio 4 news. Tonight they did it again. The item about the returning of Abu Quatada to Jordan was the excuse for retelling Yvette Cooper's claims that this decision had taken too long - indeed it had but only thanks to the signing up by her party when in government to the European Human Rights Act. This was followed by a nice long soundbite not from the Home Secretary, a Conservative, but her Labour shadow.

Maybe the BBC should consider which party/parties are in power and making decisions rather than who the BBC would prefer to be in power.

Another Barack Obama verbal cockup by no interest at the BBC

I have previously posted about Barack Obama's various verbal misspeaks - 57 stats etc. and how the BBC just are not interested in the sort of misspeaks that they loved to report when made by George W. Bush. So I was not surprised to learn of this latest example and even less surprised not to see it on the BBC.

It was during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia that Barack Obama decided to call the Falklands by their Spanish name 'Malvinas', unfortunately he instead called them the Maldives, which is a group of atolls off of the south coast of India.No interest at the BBC either in his misspeak or the fact that a US President tried to side with the Argentinians over their ridiculous claim on the Falklands.

BBC incompetence or scaremongering?

The BBC's Breaking News Twitter feed tweeted this this morning

Wouldn't the addition of the word 'next' before 'Tuesday' have made the situation clearer and less threatening?

Ed Miliband's big 'but'

The BBC report the news that:

'Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties, including those from trade unions.

He told the BBC this would remove the influence of "big money" on politics.

But Mr Miliband also said he wanted to keep the system under which union members are asked whether they want to keep paying £3 a year to Labour - around three million currently do so.'

The BBC find the space to tell us that around three million trade union members pay £3 a year to the Labour party but only allow Conservative ministers to say or claim that figure that would be affected by Ed Miliband's £5,000 cap would be much smaller. In fact, in a non-election year, the cap would restrict donations from the Labour party hardly at all. In November the Labour party proudly reported the latest figures from the Electoral Commission thus:

'Labour’s members are our biggest donors'

Income from Labour Party membership fees:

2008: £5.9m
2009: £6.1m
2010: £7.3m
2011 (projected): £7.6m

Income from affiliation fees:

The affiliation fees the Labour Party receives is £7.6m annually.

In addition to affiliation fees, trade unions sometimes choose to make some additional donations to support the Labour Party, particularly at General Elections.

2008: £0.2m
2009: £0.6m
2010: £3.9m
2011: £0.1m'

So on the Labour party's own figures, the percentage of income from Trade Unions and other affiliation fees only that Ed Miliband has offered to forgo would have been in recent years:

2008: 0.15% (normal year)
2009: 4.2% (pre-election year)
2010: 20.7% (election year)
2011: 0.6% (normal year)

So once again we see the BBC promoting an idea from the Labour party as fair and equatable, only reporting Conservative claims as to is irrelevance and ignoring the Labour party's own figures that prove the Conservative party's case. The way that the BBC act as the propaganda arm of the Labour party is clear and disgusting and I cannot believe that David Cameron and his fellow wets at the top of the Conservative party cannot see this and why they continually fail to act upon it.

Sorry Sunny Hundal and Lee Jasper - you will have to wait

Too nice a day to waste on people like you, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow...

Wrong, oh so wrong!

The Telegraph's form guide had this to say about the eventual winner of yesterday's Grand National - Neptune Collonges - 'Tough and a good jumper. May find weight anchoring him at finish.'

Neptune Colonges won the Grand National by a very short nose only overtaking Sunnyhillboy in the last stride or so. Here's the photo-finish photo...

I'd say Neptune Collanges was hardly being anchored by the weight he was carrying at the end of the race!

Ken Livingstone's declared income yesterday and today; I wonder what he will declare tomorrow...

More details at Mark Pack.

Do you support affirmative action in order to help under-represented minorities?

"How is academic ability different from athletic ability"
'Many students support affirmative action, in an effort to promote diversity. They argue that race-based preferences “level the playing field” for disadvantaged minorities. However, these same students refused to sign our petition to apply such policies to the basketball team. At UC Riverside — where the video was filmed — 10/11 active players on the team are African American. Why not use affirmative action to promote diversity there? '

The Exposing Leftists website makes some good points.

Kate Upton and cockroaches - A Friday night Rule 5 post

Kate Upton and the banned advert, too many double-entendres?

For more Kate Upton try looking here, but here's a picture

The BBC and the London Mayoral election

The BBC want Ken Livingstone to win the London Mayoral election. In fact regardless of who was standing for the Labour party and the Conservative party they would want the Labour party candidate to win; that much is obvious. So the comparison of the BBC's profile pages for Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson holds few surprises.

Ken Livingstone's profile does not ignore some of the criticisms of Ken Livingstone but these criticisms are downplayed with lines like 'said by opponents to be one of the "loony left".' The whole tax avoidance matter is described in this one short line:

'In recent weeks he's come under attack for his tax affairs. Livingstone has said the allegations that he avoided tax are "smears"'

No analysis of whether the claims or Ken are correct.

There is also not a word about the controversy over Ken Livingstone's associations with at least one Islamist preacher whose anti-Semitic and homophobic comments are apparently acceptable to the prospective London Mayor and the BBC. Nor is there any mention of his controversial work for the Iranian Press TV. Maybe Ken's decision to court the London Muslim vote has struck a chord with the BBC.


Boris Jonson's profile is less positive in tone. From the opening description of him as 'the gaffe-prone former MP, journalist and TV show host.' the tone is set. Almost every one of his achievements is balanced with a criticism. The line 'Thought of as one of the most colourful politicians, the question is whether Londoners will be convinced by his record as mayor and re-elect him for a second term.' is nicely placed as is ' is followed by a long list of his 'gaffes' with no defence given. The article finishes with the thought that 'His career has proved no less colourful' followed by a long list of his career issues.


So for the BBC Boris Johnson's gaffes and career issues are of great importance but Ken Livingstone's association with less than savoury characters repugnant foreign regimes do not even warrant a mention.

The BBC claim to have impartiality on their genes; I think not.

Mob attack

If a white mob beat, taunted and stripped a lone black man on Martin Luther King day I would expect the media coverage to be wall to wall. Oddly when it is a white man beaten, taunted and stripped on St Patrick's Day the media coverage is all but non-existent; why?

'A feral mob attacked, beat, stripped and tormented a lost tourist on St Patrick's Day in Baltimore. This racist attack was committed while chanting the name of a Black website called 'World Star Hip Hop' that regularly contains virulent racist and violent comments against Whites. Download this video immediately and continue to spread it to help catch these cowardly violent and racist thugs.'

It will have to wait until tomorrow

Unless someone gets there first, tomorrow I will compare and contrast the BBC's profile pages of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. Sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel!

Ken Livingstone - not just a "f***ing liar" and a defender of a vile Islamist preacher, he's also got no idea of scale

In yesterday's Evening Standard London Mayor debate, Ken Livingstone made the claim that:

"I immediately discovered I've been paying 35 per cent tax, so much bloody tax the Government should have been able to get another one of these aircraft carriers without planes,"

One of those aircraft carriers costs around £2.5bn, at a 35% tax rate that means Ken has paying tax on earnings of over £7bn. Not even Tony Blair earns that much! More realistically Ken Livingstone is just deluded.

Returning to the matter of tax-avoidance...

The Standard reports that:

'Documents seen by the Standard reveal that he received a £71,746 resettlement grant from the Greater London Authority in the 2008/09 financial year after being defeated by Mr Johnson.
But in the accounts Mr Livingstone released last week he claimed that he only earned £21,645 then. Tory MP Priti Patel said: "This is further dodgy dealings from Ken. He owes it to London's electorate to publish his earnings."'

Meanwhile City AM has discovered that Ken Livingstone 'saved over £75,000 in tax by channelling some of his earnings through a company'. Yes it was legal, but this is the same Ken Livingstone who said:

"These rich bastards just don't get it … no one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in parliament, unless they pay their full share of tax.
"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super rich by exploiting every tax fiddle … [We should] sweep away tax scams and everybody should pay tax at the same rate on earnings and other income."

What Ken Livingstone did was legal and no different from what many contractors in various industries do and what most accountants would recommend. However Ken Livingstone had previously taken a pretty extreme stand against tax avoidance so he has to be judged by higher standards.

Rev Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama

'Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered a sermon at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of their Holy Week event. He admitted his fiery preaching has not changed since his days in seminary and that President Obama did hear 20 years of sermons.'

Thanks to Breitbart for the spot.

For more on Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama take a look here where there is plenty of video quotations from Rev Jeremiah 'Goddam America' Wright.

Beatrix von Bourbon - The Britain's Got Talent audition and the full act - NSFW

I don't watch Britain's Got Talent, I have some degree of self-respect, but did hear of one performance that I thought was worth watching, that of Britain's answer to Dita von Teese, Beatrix von Bourbon.

Here's her Britain's Got Talent audition piece


And here's a lengthier and more revealing version of the act from the Fish & Whips Burlesque contest

I haven't seen breast twirling like that since The Graduate....

Lainie Miller Shows Her BoobTalents to Dustin Hoffman - The funniest movie is here. Find it

There is plenty more of Beatrix von Bourbon on the internet. Whilst she is not a one trick pony, the routines all end up with her less dressed than at the beginning - not that I'm complaining....

For Labour MP for Northfield Richard Burden some deaths are worth remembering but not others

This morning a couple of tweets from British Labour MP Richard Burden caught my attention:

The death of Tom Hurndall was a terrible incident and an Israeli soldier was tried by an Israeli court, found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a long prison sentence.

Since Richard Burden was so keen to remind us of Tom Hurndall's death, I wondered who else's death he considered worthy of remembrance.

Rachel Corrie's death, whilst sad and regrettable, was not the clear cut event that the supporters of the Palestinian cause/haters of Israel like to portray. Read around the subject please.

Since Richard Burden is so keen on remembering people killed in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict I looked to see if he had posted anything on the 11th March, he hadn't. I wonder if he even knows why that date is important? So why would Richard Burden choose to remember the manslaughter of Tom Hurndall and the accidental killing of Rachel Corrie but not the brutal murder of the five members of the Fogel family?

A man who calls Palestinian terrorists by the term 'resistance groups' has nailed his colours pretty firmly to the mast. I wonder what first interested Richard Burden in this subject area?

One final tweet of Richard Burden's caught my eye

Does Richard Burden not realise that Israeli attacks on Gaza are in response to incessant rocket attacks on Israel? If these rocket attacks ceased then Israel would not need to try and destroy the rocket launchers and their operators? Would he rather more Israelis were killed?


I have plenty more to say about Richard Burden and his interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Watch this space...

My apologies I may have made a mistake in my pieces about Jordan being the real Palestinian state

I have several times, most recently here quoted historical figures including Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee member Zahir Muhsein who admitted that:

'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'

I must admit that I now see that I may have been hasty in repeating that quotation and assuming that it was clear-cut that Jordan was the Palestinian state.

The reason? I have been made aware of this from this blog:

'In July 2010 J. D. Longstreet, a widely read commentator, wrote, “Going back to 1937 we learn that “a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."'

Sorry so I may be wrong the Palestinian state may not be Jordan, maybe it's Syria. One thing I do know, it sure as hell isn't Israel.

Barack Oabama - bored, not interested in being lectured on the realities of economics or just trying to look up Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff skirt?

Tough one to call that. Oh for Bill Clinton as US President, you knew where he'd stand on this one.

I am sure there is a gag involving Brazilian Brazilians but I'm not sure that I want to go there.


Thanks to Breitbart for the video spot.

A belated Happy Easter from Kate Upton - NSFW - Rule 5

A little late but somehow I don't think you will mind!

The Barack Obama birth-certificate queries remain

American Thinker has a nice update... Here's an extract:

'New evidence, however, has reignited conservative interest in Obama's birth certificate. Conservative icon Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake.

Skilled as Sherriff Joe's team undoubtedly is in identifying forged documents, last month offered interesting substantiation of the team's findings. Renowned skeptic of global warming theories Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.

According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."

Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine."

This conclusion glaringly lacks ambiguity. And if Monckton is correct, we should be beyond worried. We should be outraged, and we should demand justice for the betrayal of the American people's trust.

Mockton's testimony is a bombshell. It is a credible voice suggesting that the image on the White House website, offered to the American people in good faith, was presented as an accurate depiction of Obama's birth certificate, and for whatever reason, it is not. This is forgery, a crime in itself, but it is the reason for the possible forgery -- fraud -- that keeps the media and lawmakers from running with this amazing story.

Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue.

The discourse has already been cleverly manipulated, you see, to shift the burden of proof from Obama to his detractors. Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States.

Barack Obama again has that chance, and Arpaio has articulated that very point. "The president can put all this to rest quite easily," he said. "All he has to do is demand [that] the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."

But then, the president has always had the opportunity to do this, and he has never seized it. One can speculate as to why. Some, like Ann Coulter, find the withholding of definitive proof of his birth to be a ruse to whip Obama's opponents into unreasonable frenzy, and thereby marginalize them. On the other hand, it is entirely logical to think that he has not produced definitive proof because there is something that is being hidden from the American public. And the fact that this birth certificate appears to be a forgery certainly strengthens the second possibility.

I've always been one of those who likes to preface sentences with "I'm no birther, but..." But in light of this new evidence, I certainly feel that there is a warrant for investigation to satisfy the birthers' concern, with Obama innocent until proven guilty, of course. And if that makes me a birther, then so be it.'