Israel is always to blame

Over this weekend around 18 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. 18 potentially lethal devices that only didn't kill and maim because Israel protects its people and the targeted population flee to bunkers (or similar) when they get the short warning of incoming missiles. The BBC chose not to report the Palestinian attacks on Israel, as is their policy. The BBC have however decided to report the Israeli response. So the BBC can print the headline 'Palestinian killed in Gaza air strike' and start the article thus:

'One civilian has been killed and at least 20 others have been hurt after an Israeli air strike on a militant base in Gaza City, Palestinian medics say.

Missiles reportedly struck a Hamas training facility overnight, sending shrapnel flying into nearby houses.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya accused Israel of an "unjustified and serious escalation" in the Gaza Strip.'

In this instance the BBC do place the Israeli explanation quite high in the report which is refreshing:

'Israel's military expressed "regret", but blamed Hamas for operating "while embedded within a civilian population".

A statement said the civilians were not harmed directly by the missiles, but by the explosion of rockets stored at the Hamas facility. Hamas, it added, had used the civilians "human shields to protect their actions".'

However the historical context is buried and obfuscated further down:

'On Thursday, Gaza-based militants fired rockets into southern Israel in response to another air strike that killed two militants.

The men died when missiles hit a car in which they were travelling on a crowded street in Gaza City.'

So the Palestinian missiles only started on Thursday and only in response to an Israeli attack! Is that really the BBC case? Have the BBC really no knowledge of the regular firing of rockets at Israeli civilians or do they see their role as to propagandise on behalf of Islamist terrorists rather than to impartially report the news? Now, more than ever, the BBC's withholding of the Balen report makes total sense.

The BBC end the piece with these odd sentences:

'The Israeli military said the men had been planning an attack on Israeli civilians and soldiers along Israel's border with Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

Palestinian sources say one of those killed was a member of the Fatah movement's military wing; the other was his nephew, a Hamas member.

The BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says much of southern Israel is on high alert.

At least one major road near the port of Eilat has been closed, and according to Israeli intelligence sources a significant cross-border attack in the area is expected anytime soon, our correspondent adds.'

'The Israeli military said the men had been planning an attack on Israeli civilians and soldiers along Israel's border with Egypt's Sinai peninsula.' - Palestinian terrorists have been attacking Israelis almost every week this year, not that the BBC have reported this news, so why do the BBC pretend that this is a new threat? Is it because they can portray Israel as attacking Palestinians at just the rumour of an ataack?

I hate, absolutely hate, the way the BBC pretends that Fatah and Hamas have political and military wings, as though the political wing has clean hands and no control or influence over their 'military' wings. Fatah and Hamas are terrorist organisations with the same aim - the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Just as the BBC portrayed Sinn Fein as being somehow separate from the IRA during 'the troubles', the position is laughable and disgusting - terrorists and their associated 'politicians' are as guilty of murder and hate-crime as each other and all should be treated the same. There is no moral difference now between a Hamas terrorist firing a rocket in the direction of an Israeli school and a Palestinian politician who protects this terrorist by lying to the world about why the rocket was fired and what the aims of the joint organisations are.

'The BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says much of southern Israel is on high alert.'

Does the BBC's Wyre Davies not know how much of Israel is on near permanent alert because of the rockets being fired at Israel? Does he not know or does he not care?

The one hundred and fifty second weekly "No shit, sherlock" award

This week's winner is Sir Antony Jay for his description of the BBC as 'bias-ridden'.

The BBC 'bias-ridden' - "No shit, Sherlock".


Actually Sir Antony Jay's remarks a re well worth a read, it's just that the headlines about his report struck me a s so funny with their shocked reporting of claims that the BBC is 'bias-ridden'.

Let's lighten the mood

A man goes into a restaurant and looks at the menu.
After a few minutes the waitress comes over to the table and asks him what he'd like to order.
He replies "I'd like a quickie".
The waitress blushes and says "That's not funny, sir. Now, what would you really like to order?"
The man replies "I'd really like a quickie"
The waitress slaps him hard and storms off, she's really angry.
Another customer, who has overheared the conversation, leans over and says to the man "Excuse me but I think you'll find that it's pronounced 'quiche'"

"Ever-closer union" was always the idea, now the EU has the excuse to force it through

The ever-closer union within the EU has been forced upon the peoples of Europe whose opinions, if they are ever asked, are ignored or made to change. The takeover of Greece and Italy by the EU has happened and where are the protests from those who claim to support democracy elsewhere in the world. The EUSSR is fast forming and that was always the plan. Here are what some of the architects of the EU had to sayand they never kept it a secret, it was the BBC and the rest of the British media that conspired to keep the aim from us, for fear we might actually protest:
"On 1 January 1999 with the introduction of the Euro ... an important part of national sovereignty, to wit monetary sovereignty, was passed over to a European institution ... The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic, but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act...political union must be our lodestar from now on: it is the logical follow-on from Economic and Monetary Union."
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor since 1998. Former Communist firebrand and photographed beater-up of a policeman (ironically called Mr Marx). Speech to the European Parliament, January 1999.



"The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State"
Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement. Former Cognac salesman and bureaucrat at the League of Nations. 3rd April 1952



"We have started a new chapter in the structure of Europe. The Euro was not just a bankers' decision or a technical decision. It was a decision that completely changed the nature of the nation states."

"The pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we changed that."

"[My] real goal [is to draw on] the consequences of the single currency and create a political Europe."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in the Financial Times, April 1999.


"The Euro can only lead to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policies ... This demands that member states give up more sovereignty".
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1999.



"We must now face the difficult task of moving forward towards a single economy, a single political entity... For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speech to European Parliament, 13th October 1999.


"The single market was the theme of the Eighties. The single currency was the theme of the Nineties. We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speech to European Parliament, 14 April 1999.


"I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."
Romano Prodi



"[What is needed is the] Europeanisation of everything to do with economic and financial policy. European Monetary Union has to be complemented with political union - that was always the presumption of Europeans."
Gerhard Schröder, German Chancellor from 1998. Interview, 2002.


"Of course the risks will remain, especially if we don't follow up the bold step that led to a single currency with further bold steps towards political integration".
Gerhard Schröder, German Chancellor from 1998.


"The introduction of the Euro is probably the most important integrating step since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that the times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, social and tax policies are definitely over. This will require to finally bury some erroneous ideas of national sovereignty... I am convinced our standing in the world regarding foreign trade and international finance policies will sooner or later force a Common Foreign and Security Policy worthy of its name... National sovereignty in foreign and security policy will soon prove itself to be a product of the imagination."
Gerhard Schroeder, German Chancellor from 1998. From 'New Foundations for European Integration', 19th January 1999.


"A European currency will lead to member-nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary affairs... It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies."
Hans Tietmeyer, Bundesbank President. Date uncertain.



"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
Wim Duisenburg, President of the European Central Bank. Date uncertain. Note the choice of words "was always meant to be", the plan is coming to fruition.


Maybe the key quotation is this one though:
'"I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."'
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Financial Times, 4 December 2001.


The number of communists, socialists and others from the authoritarian left in positions of power in the EU is no accident, the EU is to be the new USSR.


Pat Condell is also a touch upset.

Distinguising Islamists from followers of moderate Islam

Two videos from David Horowitz's 'restoration weekend' that you should watch if you want to understand more about the Islamism and the problems that 'moderate' Islam face. Robert Spencer is of course a leading voice but there are others as well. However he does, as usual, speak the uncomfortable truth about the teachings of the Koran.


The analogy with Martin Luther was an interesting one. The Fort Dix plot foiling story was one that I had not heard before. Also Baroness Cox also gives a very interesting speech.



Robert Spencer's explanation of why Islamists hate us is as always instructive but it is a point that needs making again and again - Islamists hate us not because of our foreign policy but because their religion teaches them to hate us.

A fine example of refusing to call a spade, a spade...

"Anti-Islamic Hyperventilation" Time Magazine   Dec 8:
 
Exchange from hearing, Wed. between Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and Paul Stockton, Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense: The terrorist threat/Hasan/Ft Hood massacre
 
 
"REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA): Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al-Qaida, its affiliates –
REP. LUNGREN: OK, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al-Qaida and its allies.
REP. LUNGREN: Is al-Qaida — can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: They — al-Qaida are murderers with an ideological agenda –
REP. LUNGREN: No, I — that’s not my question. That wasn’t my question. My question was, is al-Qaida acting out violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance –
REP. LUNGREN: So is it yes or no?
MR. STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again? I’ll make it as clear as I can. We are not at war with Islam. And it is not –
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t ask that — I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we’re at war with violent Islamist extremism. That’s my question.
MR. STOCKTON: No, we’re at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.
REP. LUNGREN: Well, al-Qaida — how does al-Qaida define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.
MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.
REP. LUNGREN: Sir –
MR. STOCKTON: And I’m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.
REP. LUNGREN: No, no, my question is, is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam. 


Thanks to 'noggin' at Biased-BBC for the spot that illustrates the linguistic and mental tangles that too many Western governments get into when discussing Islamists.

Even left-wing comics get it...

Tonight's Radio 4 Now Show had an interesting segment by Paul Sinha Listen here from 09:55 to 14:10
His act was a defence of Jeremy Clarkson's controversial joke about the public sector strikers, the concept of which at first shocked the audience but he then had them laughing as he did some anti-News International and anti-Jeremy Clarkson gags with usual lefty humour which the audience approved of, he also gave a good explanation of why Jeremy Clarkson should not be attacked which was refreshing. However he also gave this line that I think deserves repetition:

"In Radio 4 comedy a comedian from the far left has to be balanced by one from the centre-left"

Too true!

Like minds?

For quite a while I have wondered why David Cameron spent quite so much energy appealing the lefty types that dominate the UK media, especially those at the BBC and Guardian collective, when they will never vote for him or do anything other than seek the destruction of him and his party. I am not alone in wondering this as this article with David Starkey in The Spectator shows:

' ‘What he [David Cameron] has been doing with Steve Hilton is totally and absolutely misconceived,’ he says...  The idea of prioritising foreign aid, being nice to minorities, hugging homosexuals to death — of whom I am one — always strikes me as fundamentally daft,’ he says. ‘A) these are not terribly popular causes and b) these are trying to appeal to the Guardianista class. The Guardianista class will never in a thousand million years vote for him. It’s an absurd strategy and no one with an understanding of British politics would actually do it.’

No, he says, Cameron should seduce the working classes and, if he were really bold, he’d junk Scotland. ‘It would fuck the left completely. There would never be a Labour government again.’'

Is David Cameron so stupid that he doesn't see the truth in this? Or is he not really a Conservative at all?

The EU in context - 'Article 50 of Lisbon requires the EU to make a trade arrangement with any nation deciding to leave it.'

As the EU leaders meet to decide how to arrange the financial deckchairs on the Eurozone Titanic I thought some links to some EU related articles that I have been hoarding for a while.

1) Christopher Booker explains that:

'The EU's architects never meant it to be a democracy
The rise of a "technocracy" was always part of the plan for Europe.

...

The events of last week were by no means the first time that an elected prime minister has been toppled by the Euro-elite. The most dramatic example, as we also showed in our book, was in 1990, when Mrs Thatcher had emerged as the biggest obstacle to the next great leap forward in their slow-motion coup d’etat, the Maastricht Treaty, creating the European Union and the single currency. Following her ambushing at a European Council in October 1990, when she was outnumbered 11 to one, the trap was sprung. An alliance between the European elite, led by Jacques Delors, and our own Tory Europhiles, led by Geoffrey Howe and Michael Heseltine, brought her down within weeks.

They had disposed of the greatest political obstacle to the onward march of their project just as ruthlessly as they were later to brush aside all those referendums expressing the objections of the French, the Dutch and the Irish to their Constitution. The one thing for which there has never been any place in their grand design is democracy.'

2) Liebrich has a wonderful collection of EU and Europe related quotations, here's a few of my favourites - as ever just listen to what they say:

'"Monetary Union is the motor of European integration"
Jean-Luc Dehaene, Prime Minister of Belgium.


"The richest state in Asia is Singapore - a small island with almost no natural resources; the richest country in Europe is Switzerland, which is not even in the EU, never mind the Euro."
'In or out - the case against the Euro', Fabian Society Pamphlet by Janet Bush and Larry Elliott, Labour party policy wonks. 3 August 2002.


"On 1 January 1999 with the introduction of the Euro ... an important part of national sovereignty, to wit monetary sovereignty, was passed over to a European institution ... The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic, but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act...political union must be our lodestar from now on: it is the logical follow-on from Economic and Monetary Union."
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor since 1998. Former Communist firebrand and photographed beater-up of a policeman (ironically called Mr Marx). Speech to the European Parliament, January 1999.


"The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which the English liberty has been gradually acquired. If the House of Commons by any possibility loses the power of control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison."
William Ewart Gladstone, British Liberal Prime Minister 1868-74, 1880-85, 1886, and 1892-94. Speech in the House of Commons, 1891.


"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community ... it is a decision of an essentially political nature. We need this United Europe ... we must never forget that the Euro is an instrument for this project."
Felipe Gonzalez, Socialist Prime Minister of Spain from 1982 to 1996. May 1998.


"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to one State."
Otmar Issuing, Chief Economist of the German Bundesbank Council,1991.



"A single currency is about the politics of Europe. It is about a Federal Europe by the back door."
John Major, British Conservative politician, Prime Minister 1991-1997, widely viewed as a failure and famous mainly for calling Eurosceptics bastards and shagging Edwina Currie. November 1996.


"The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State"
Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement. Former Cognac salesman and bureaucrat at the League of Nations. 3rd April 1952


"We have started a new chapter in the structure of Europe. The Euro was not just a bankers' decision or a technical decision. It was a decision that completely changed the nature of the nation states."

"The pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we changed that."

"[My] real goal [is to draw on] the consequences of the single currency and create a political Europe."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in the Financial Times, April 1999.


"The Euro can only lead to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policies ... This demands that member states give up more sovereignty".
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview in Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1999.


"We must now face the difficult task of moving forward towards a single economy, a single political entity... For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speech to European Parliament, 13th October 1999.


"The single market was the theme of the Eighties. The single currency was the theme of the Nineties. We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, speech to European Parliament, 14 April 1999.


"I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."
Romano Prodi

"I know very well that the Stability Pact [which fines Euro-zone countries if they persistently run budget deficits over 3%] is stupid, like all decisions which are rigid."
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Interview with le Monde, 17 Oct 2002. The Stability Pact immediately became known as the Stupidity Pact.


"[European Monetary Union is] a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe ... [if you are prepared to give up Sovereignty to the EU] you might just as well give it to Adolf Hitler, frankly."
Nicholas Ridley (1929 - 1993) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under Margaret Thatcher, taking a career-ending dive into the swivel-eyed tendency, for which he was forced to resign. From an interview in Spectator magazine, July 1990.


"[What is needed is the] Europeanisation of everything to do with economic and financial policy. European Monetary Union has to be complemented with political union - that was always the presumption of Europeans."
Gerhard Schröder, German Chancellor from 1998 who does NOT dye his hair. Interview, 2002. Well that's pretty clear.


"Of course the risks will remain, especially if we don't follow up the bold step that led to a single currency with further bold steps towards political integration".
Gerhard Schröder, German Chancellor from 1998. Date uncertain.


"The introduction of the Euro is probably the most important integrating step since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that the times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, social and tax policies are definitely over. This will require to finally bury some erroneous ideas of national sovereignty... I am convinced our standing in the world regarding foreign trade and international finance policies will sooner or later force a Common Foreign and Security Policy worthy of its name... National sovereignty in foreign and security policy will soon prove itself to be a product of the imagination."
Gerhard Schroeder, German Chancellor from 1998. From 'New Foundations for European Integration', 19th January 1999.


"A European currency will lead to member-nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary affairs... It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies."
Hans Tietmeyer, Bundesbank President. Date uncertain.


"When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them ... neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. "
Treaty of Rome, 1957, Article 107. This doesn't explain why it was so important that the second head of the ECB be French, since he's not allowed by law to act in the interest of any one country.


"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
Wim Duisenburg, President of the European Central Bank. Date uncertain. Note the choice of words "was always meant to be", which communicates a false inevitability.'

I'll repeat one of those for emphasis:
'"I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created."'
Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. Financial Times, 4 December 2001. Amazing, the front on these guys. So a future crisis is not seen as an indictment of the current system but an opportunity to extend it.


3) M E Synon in The Mail takes the EU to task for peddling the lie that: 'We (the EU) secured the last 50 years of peace'

'The word around Brussels is that the euro-elite thought the EU was in line to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, I know: all one can say is, 'Huh?'

Yet it seems that José Manuel Barroso, Herman Van Rompuy and the rest fancied the EU deserved the prize for keeping Europe at peace for 50 years.

At which point 'Huh?' becomes disgust. This 'the EU kept the peace for 50 years' lie is being used by euro-ideologues in their efforts to re-write history. (If you have school-age children, better check their school books to see just how far this lie has seeped into their curriculum.)'

4) The Telegraph reports that:

'Britain will be better off in five years’ time if the eurozone breaks up than if the single currency survives the debt crisis, research suggests today. '

According to The Telegraph the report that I have not heard the BBC mention suggests that:

'The disorderly break-up of the euro would mean a short, sharp economic shock and probably a recession, but would be followed by a quicker return to strong economic growth, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

As European governments struggle to keep the eurozone together, Greek political leaders last night sealed a pact to form a national unity government after George Papandreou, the prime minister, announced his imminent resignation under pressure from a European ultimatum.

David Cameron will today tell MPs that the failure of eurozone leaders to resolve the debt crisis is harming the economy, and will warn that the break-up of the single currency would be even more damaging.

However, CEBR economists suggest that the demise of the euro would “not be anything like the disaster that has been argued”.

Freed from the constraints of the single currency, strong countries such as Germany would see their currencies gain in price in relation to the pound, boosting British exports.

The economists also predict that break-up would free many eurozone members from the deficit-cutting austerity policies that threaten to subdue their growth for years.

“If it breaks up the immediate pain is much more intense, but then there is a more stable basis and we would expect that within about 30 months growth will actually be faster than if the eurozone survives in its current form,” CEBR said.

After five years, Britain would be “at least as well off if the euro breaks up as it would be under the alternative scenario of holding it together”. '

This is not a majority view but it is a view that deserves discussion not ignoring.


5) Finally Simon Heffer in The Mail nails the lie propagated by the BBC and other Europhiles that 'leaving the EU would destroy Britain;. Here's an extract:

'a pamphlet published this week by David Campbell Bannerman, a Tory MEP, seeks to argue (against party policy) the contrary. Its title says it all: ‘The Ultimate Plan B: A Positive Vision Of An Independent Britain Outside The European Union.’

Coinciding as it does with the ICM poll findings, his thesis deserves to be studied carefully. Firstly we need to break out of the mindset that anyone who tries to make the case for Britain leaving the EU is mad — or, to judge from the contempt in which such a view is treated on certain BBC programmes, downright evil.

Mr Campbell Bannerman’s strongest argument is that there would be no economic downside to our departure. As the EU sells more to us than we do to it, it would be very much in its interests to enact a free trade agreement with us were we to leave. In 2009, our trade deficit — the excess of what we bought over what we sold — in manufactured goods with the EU was a shade under £35 billion.

Better than that — and here, at last, there is something to be said for the 2007 Lisbon Treaty — such a free trade agreement would not be a matter of conjecture. Article 50 of Lisbon requires the EU to make a trade arrangement with any nation deciding to leave it.

So the claim that there would be inevitable and large job losses is cast into doubt. He also argues that — with the ascent of China, India and Brazil — Britain would do well to leave a trading bloc whose share of world GDP is forecast to fall to 15 per cent in 2020, down from 36 per cent in 1980.

Just as the EU took no account of its role in a post-Soviet world, it seems incapable of understanding how to remain competitive in relation to rising powers such as China.

Britain also enjoys trading relationships elsewhere in the world that are not shared by other EU countries. We send 18 per cent of our exports to the U.S.: Germany sends only 7 per cent. And the biggest external investor in Britain is America.

Mr Campbell Bannerman rests much of his case for leaving the EU on the liberation it would bring from over-regulation of every aspect of our lives — one of the reasons for the EU’s poor competitiveness. He says that more than 100,000 regulations and directives have been imposed upon us since we joined the EU in 1973.

For example, the working-time directive — designed to limit the number of hours we can work, and which is estimated to cost £11.9 billion a year in lost productivity — would go if we left the EU. So, too, would a host of environmental orders such as the EU renewables directive, which insists we derive 20 per cent of our energy from renewables such as wind power, at an estimated £22 billion a year.

The Open Europe think tank reported last year that EU regulations had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998. This figure is not a partisan invention, but based on the Government’s assessments.

But the truth is the ‘bonfire of regulations’ that ministers talk about would be possible only if we left the EU or had a successful renegotiation to repatriate such powers.'

There is a lot more in the article, do read it all and remember the fact that 'Article 50 of Lisbon requires the EU to make a trade arrangement with any nation deciding to leave it.'

Are electric cars that efficient?

Jeff ID has found the work of a scientist re the effectiveness of electric cars:

'The author is a physicist and engineer with additional degree equivalent qualifications in accountancy, economics and management. He worked for the UK government (HMG) and in 1974 was transferred to a newly formed division considering how to mitigate the effects of the oil price shock which included examining all possible alternative sources of energy as to cost and effectiveness. In 1976 he became increasingly involved in the electric car team and was formally seconded to it in 1977 when it became the Electric Car Group, (ECG) which had a brief from HMG to develop and report on the technology of a practical small electric city car and provide technical support to British manufacturers. He retired some years ago. The views expressed below are entirely his own as are any errors.'

It's a good, and long, read; do read it all, here's part of the conclusion:

'... however vilified, as the Infernal combustion engine always has been and still is, it remains along with its liquid hydrocarbon fuel a faithful servant and a very formidable competitor when it comes to propelling motor cars. In the end it is simple, robust, reliable and cheap. It has been around so long that any mechanic from London to Outer Mongolia can twiddle, tweak and fix it. And behind these mechanics is an organised supply chain that can deliver spare parts almost anywhere, even Darkest Peru, within a day or two. And it has seen off its rivals, even those hardy perennials such as steam and electricity many times before and bids fair to do so again.

Do politicians really imagine, for all their delusions of grandeur, that by squandering a few billions of the taxpayer’s money, they can change a great worldwide industry overnight? That is for you, not the author to judge. He has his own view.'

© ajgjones 2009 whose moral right is asserted.

Are the 99% really 99%?

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper was invited to speak at an event celebrating a new solar power facility near Colorado Springs. After ten minutes of various introductory speakers the Governor came to the podium. Immediately a crowd of occupiers interrupted his remarks. As you’ll see, this continued until someone in the crowd had an idea...


Thanks to Verum Serum for the spot.

Colonel Sherman Potter R.I.P.

I have just heard that the actor Harry Morgan has died at the age of 96. For those of you who do not know the name, he was the actor who played the role of Colonel Sherman Potter in M*A*S*H*. I loved M*A*S*H* when I was a teenager and I always thought the horse riding Colonel Sherman Potter was a great character and that his two-pieces with Radar were often most moving...

'Political correctness gone mad'

In the UK Carole King's new album is called A Christmas Carole - a pretty obvious pun and one that I cannot believe she and her record company have avoided for so long. In the USA however the album has been named, apparently for reasons of political correctness, A Holiday Carole

How ridiculous is that, carols were written to celebrate Christmas not for the 'holidays'. Christmas is a Christian festival, in the same way that Diwali is a Hindu one. I am not offended by anyone wishing anyone else a Happy Christmas or a Happy Diwali, even though I am neither Christian or Hindu. Likewise I know of no Jew who would be offended by seeing an album called A Christmas Carole in their local record store. Who do the US record company think would be offended? Can I guess?

The true foresight of the visionary Denis MacShane

Regular followers of my Tweets would know that I am not a massive fan of the Labour (well sort of) MP Denis MacShane. I find too much of what he says partisan for the sake of it and often incredibly stupid. So I was intrigued to read the following at Guido Fawkes' site today:

'If only we had listened to Denis MacShane just two years ago, we wouldn’t be in the horrendous mess we are now:

“For more than a decade we have been told that the euro was a terrible idea, while the good old pound sterling would protect the British economy from the wily ways of the Europeans. Now more and more people are asking why the pound is letting us down – and whether treating it as a shibboleth that cannot be questioned makes sense any more. All the old arguments against the euro have fallen away. There is no European super-state emerging with its adoption. There is no dictation of economic policy from Brussels.

If the euro were used here as it is without fuss in countries we are close to, including Ireland and the Netherlands, then the next Governor of the European Central Bank could easily be a Brit. But if British voters are no longer going to feel like poor relations whenever they holiday in other European countries, then before long someone is going to have to begin making the case that like shillings and pence, the pound may now have had its day.”'

Denis MacShane as right on the money there as usual!

The Arab Spring explained

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Disaster is always around the corner

The Global Warming/Man Made Climate  Change fanatics are always pointing to scientific predictions of forthcoming disaster as a way of urging us to reduce CO2 emissions and cut back on industry in the west. The trouble is that they have been doing this for so long that the timescale of some of the predictions has now been & gone and oddly the predictions have not come true. There a quite a lot of predictions form the late 1990s and early 2000s that this holds for and I will try and blog about more of these over the coming months but I thought I would start with one from the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2005 this organisation predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Did that happen? If it did then the world's environmental organisations failed to report it.

The point being that scare tactics are all these activists have, apart of course from rigged data and questionable science, so the watermelon brigade (Green on the outside but red on the inside) issue their warnings so as to try and redistribute money and destroy western economies.

Meanwhile the activists' accomplices in the leftist media, such as the BBC, faithfully report the predictions of doom and gloom but neglect to report when the predictions are shown to have been wrong

Is Andy Burnham linked to some Werritty behaviour?

Guido Fawkes thinks so... With more here.

Problems ahead for Alastair Campbell?

Guido Fawkes thinks so, based upon this thinly veiled threat at the end of Trevor Kavanagh’s column in this morning’s Sun:

“ALASTAIR CAMPBELL, who once played the media like a fiddle, has the nerve to accuse the Press of being “putrid”. He is fortunate lobby journalists never reveal their sources. Otherwise a queue of hacks could reveal how Alastair routinely dripped poison into their ears about everyone – then swore them to secrecy. Luckily, some of us kept a diary.”

Guido opines:

'Word of these diaries is spreading like wildfire. There is talk of the dates, times and locations of meetings where Campbell “dripped poison”.'

Could Alastair Campbell be skewered by his own briefings, one does hope so.

Who saw that coming?

I just don't understand why some people seem surprised that the Muslim Brotherhood and its even more Islamist (yes scarily that is possible) cousins in the Nour party look like forming the next Egyptian government. The only party organised and capable of fighting to win the election were the Muslim Brotherood and I predicted that they would be the winners before the election was even called. The western media, especially the BBC, looked at the 'liberals' in Tahrir Square and thought that they represented all of Egypt. The BBC and others were wrong on two counts: first the 'liberals' in Tahrir represented a small number of metropolitan types, the majority of Egyptians are not in the slightest metropolitan and they were easy meat for the Muslim Brotherhood's inducements, second the 'liberals' in Tahrir Square were not that liberal, it's just that the BBC decided (as usual) to ignore the banners expressing hatred for Jews, the rapes and the calls for Islamist government.

With an Islamist government in Egypt, a government that could well include Aboud al-Zumour who was convicted of masterminding the assassination of the late President Anwar Sadat, a man who was a close friend of Ayman Zawahiri (the man now leading al-Qaeda), a man who describes the Al Quaeda leader as a "very kind and nice man". Aboud al-Zumour backs "resistance" against the "occupiers" in the Middle East - America and Israel. In his ideal Egypt, the sale of alcohol would be banned, beaches would be segregated and thieves would have their hands cut off - though, he says "it would not happen because no-one would steal".

Well done BBC for supporting the Arab Spring revolutiions, Islamist governments are the result, but maybe that is what you wanted.

Wearing a telephone was right...

From a 1930s look at fashion for the year 2000. The women's fashion is not close but the man wearing a telephone...