My Country, 'Tis of Thee

Professor Robert Reich, of the University of California, writes that global corporations have no allegiance to any country and this is why they wriggle out of paying any taxes.

Isn't it equally true that socialists and even liberals have no allegiance to any country? Marxism long ago damned the nation state as evil and proclaimed that socialism was international. Liberals follow at a discreet distance, identifying nationhood with aggressive nationalist warmongering. Reich himself refers to nationhood as "xenophobia". The whole idea of having any loyalty to your country or to society has been totally jettisoned by trendies and lefties. So why should big corporations stick with it?

 Reich argues that by staying in the European Union, we would be stronger and more able to stand up to the big international corporations. If so, it is strange that after nearly forty years membership, no such outcome has transpired. The big corporations find it very useful that we are all in the EU  so they can operate here freely while based in other EU countries such as Ireland or Luxembourg that have lower corporations taxes. If the EU hasn't solved these problems in the last forty years, why believe it can do so now? I suspect that the more these giant firms pay in corporation tax, the fewer people they will employ, and the less they will pay in salaries which generate income tax, and the result would be that they generate fewer jobs, lowering demand for goods and services from other businesses. There are plenty of reasons to deplore and shun Starbucks and the others, but Google does give a lot of people free e-mails and a free search engine.

    Professor Reich seems to think that allegiance to a nation is a good thing for corporations but a bad thing for everybody else. I don't quite see how that figures. I don't see why massive corporations should get public subsidies, but that is another matter.

http://www.laprogressive.com/global-capital-nation-state/

Barking Mad

          Of all the hate-mail and death threats I still regularly get, some of the most bizarre messages have come from a person calling himself Lord Maxstead.
Hate mail from LGBT loons is usually characterized by scatological language and pathological aggression. Freakish threats, hysteria and foul language are their norms of behaviour. Lord Maxstead is not foul-mouthed and does not make death threats but his logic is so tangled that it continues to amaze me. He deserves some sort of award for the most absurd, illogical twaddle.
         He sent me an E-mail in which he argued for redefining marriage by saying, "My relationship is just as good as yours! It deserves to be recognized as equal!"
         No kidding.
         It's a bit like writing to someone with a dog and saying that your cat is "just as good" as their dog (which you have never seen) and therefore the cat should be allowed to compete at Crufts. Why not hamsters as well? Why shouldn't hamsters enter for the Grand National because they're "just as good as " a horse? To a logical person, the fact is that a cat and a dog are different. People never use cats for guarding their house or rounding up sheep and dogs are no good at catching small birds.
         Since I have never met Lord Maxstead (be grateful for small mercies) I haven't got any opinion about his "relationship", and I wonder how he imagines he can have any opinion on mine. How does he know I have got one at all? How does he know I haven't got an address-book full of toy-boys who meet me at country hotels for weekends now and then? How does he know that I am not a single person, widow, celibate or nun? Such logical factors do not bother him.
      There is only one thing very clear about Lord Maxstead and his "relationship"  - that it is with another male. In that respect, it is plainly, and significantly different from a heterosexual relationship. Whether it is a good relationship is anybody's guess. People can hate each other and fight but still be married ... that is why they need from time to time to get divorced. People can have a good relationship and not be married....that is why in those circumstances they often get married. You actually have to be unmarried, to get married.
       Lord Maxstead's message reveals a kind of naive vanity that makes one squirm. It is a shallow and silly thing to say. He simply does not understand what marriage is. Marriage is not some sort of display, to show off to your friends what a super relationship you have got. "My relationship is as good as yours...." sounds awfully similar to "My penis is as big as yours..." or "My dress is just as expensive as yours...."  Marriage is not an exercise in vanity. It is a matter of biological mating and a pledge of fidelity - two essential things, both missing from the same-sex so-called "marriage" contract now going through parliament.
      There will be many forms of grave harm to society if this nonsense law is allowed to go through. One of them is the farming of children for sale to rich homosexual couples, a shameful procedure not seen since the days of slavery. Another is the erosion of our understanding of marriage as a faithful, monogamous commitment. All of this arises because of bad logic  - it is the result of ignorance, bad education, illiteracy and lack of clarity of thought.

"In a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell).

Documentary about surrogate birth industry in India. Homosexuals pay to breed kids like animals.

 http://touch.dailymotion.com/video/xes5mf_google-baby-bebes-en-kit_webcam

Article about children in Vietnam and children from SSM.

http://www.libertepolitique.com/Actualite/Decryptage/Yves-Meaudre-Sauver-l-enfant-de-la-folie-ideologique

Labour Dragged Migrants In says Mandelson

If ever anybody had "something of the night" about them it has to be Peter Mandelson, the most successful crook of our time.
      Ed Rubberband is now making one of his regular U-turns, trying to woo voters by saying that Labout got it wrong on uncontrolled immigration. Meanwhile Mandelson is following the trend for public confession by spouting on about how the Blair government "sent out search parties" to find and drag in all the foreign immigrants they could.
Can somebody explain to me how bringing in non-unionized workers who are willing to work for low wages without security, safety inspections or pension schemes, can be in the interest of the working class here? How exactly does it make it easier for those already unemployed here to find work? Are they expected to emigrate to the Ukraine or Bulgaria, which are of course prosperous paradises because they have long been communist?
     Mandelson says that they wanted to "rub British noses in diversity". I wonder how many of the Eastern European arrivals are Roman Catholics who have a deep dislike of socialism. When Mandelson went partying on yachts among the EU elite he did not meet the grass roots and he has little idea of what they are really like.
     A few days ago Stephanie Botrill, a grandmother in Solihull, West Midlands, committed suicide because of benefit cuts here that meant she was being pushed out of her home. She had an auto-immune disease that made it harder for her to work as she was in frequent pain. A mass influx of cheap labour did not help people like her to get jobs or to earn the extra £20 per week that would have enabled her to pay her OWN rent and stay in her home, with her network of friends. Mrs Botrill walked under a lorry.
    Peter Mandelson does not have to worry about being kicked out of his home (the one for which he got a mortgage from a close political colleague - remember?) To Mandy with his millions and his vast EU pension the whole situation is academic.

http://news.sky.com/story/1089813/bedroom-tax-blamed-for-womans-suicide
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come--hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html

Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.

In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.

He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.

By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.

Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.

The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.

Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.

Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. 

He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.

Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.

But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’

He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html#ixzz2TS47qHwy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Abu-Cadabra! How to Make a Terrorist Vanish

What a remarkable coincidence. The Coalition government gets a disastrous local election result and one week later Mr Abu Qatada, the impudent hate preacher and enemy of this country, decides "voluntarily" to leave.
After so many years of struggle, so many court hearings and appeals, so many Yuman Rights decisions that have humiliated this country and made Home Secretary Theresa May look weak and idiotic, Mr Omar Othman ( to give him his real name) has had a change of heart. He has of his own volition decided to go back to Jordan and remain there. How strange. Am I the only person who suspects that a large bribe must be the reason he has finally agreed to go? I rather imagine that on his return to Jordan Mr Qatada will not be living in poverty or looking for paid work. Somebody will have passed him a nice lump sum  - at least ten million  - which will be stashed in a secret numbered bank account. And that somebody is somebody very, very concerned about last week's proof of the rise of UKIP.
      For twenty years this nasty, aggressive man has leeched off Britain and taken full advantage of the soft-touch system socialists put in place. An open terrorist and jihadist, who despises the West and encourages its over throw by violent means, he lives on our state benefits and exploits the "Human Rights" tosh imposed on us by foreign courts as a price of belonging to the EU (as if that wasn't bad enough in itself). When he first came to this country in 1993, on a forged passport, he already had five children. Then he revealed himself to be a radical jihadist and started to advocate violence. In 1995 he issued a "fatwa" calling for all those who left Islam to be killed, along with their wives and children. Yuman Rights, you see. In 1995 he was convicted on terrorist charges in Jordan but simply refused to leave the UK. He went on openly preaching hate and violence including the murder of Jews. He also ran a fund-raising campaign to aid jihadists in Chechnya, keeping at one time £170,000 cash in his house so as to avoid income tax, company tax, or any other inconvenient tax.
      For twenty years, he and his polygamous family have lived in an £800,000 four-bedroom house in West London entirely at the expense of the tax-payer. No under-occupancy rules for him! They claim thousands of pounds per month in benefits, do no work and pay nothing in tax. Qatada has also cost us millions in legal aid fees. He employs a QC on his behalf to defy and deride our common laws, and has a security guard at the public's expense. No wonder he can afford seventeen mobile phones!
    Anybody who raises any objection is sneered at by soggy-brained socialists as a "Daily Mail reader". Yes, the lefties really believe that the Daily Mail invented Abu Qatada, and all his family, along with Abu Hamza, benefit fraud, fake asylum-seekers, health tourism, the euro-crisis and the riots in Greece, Spain, Italy, France and Portugal. All inventions, all non-existent...
    In 2009 Qatada humiliated the British government yet again by getting a compensation award for wrongful imprisonment. The ECHR tells us that holding this poor little man with his yard-long beard in prison is a breach of his "Yuman Rights" for gawd's sake.....
    And now, days after their bad election results scared the Tories, somehow Mr Othman has chosen to return to Jordan of his own free volition? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. This deal has got money in it somewhere and when Abu-Qatada finally does climb on a plane out of here, he will be flying First Class and going back to a champagne lifestyle, not a gaol.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22480089
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17769990

Labour's "total inability to govern".

Tristram Hunt, Labour MP for Stoke on Trent, gave us all a warning on BBC Question Time yesterday about trusting any other political party to rule Britain.
The subject of UKIP's rise in the share of votes at Thursday's election was always going to be hard to avoid. So Mr Hunt compared UKIP to Italy's newly-emergent Five Star party, which is now in the ruling coalition. "When they get into power," he said, trying to sound aloof and condescending, "what happens is that they just display a total inability to govern."
      He said that without a trace of irony.
Clearly he has forgotten that he is a member of the Labour party, whose 13 years in power from 1997 to 2010 were the best example anywhere in history of "total inability to govern". Labour found the country in still reasonable shape and left it in tatters. The Blair-Brown government was a complete disaster. Tony WMD Blair spent billions on two wars that have achieved nothing except slaughter, ruin, shameful atrocities, war crimes and the replacement of one bad government with another. Oh that's not quite true  - one other thing they achieved was a rather prolonged enquiry into why or whether a certain scientist cut his wrists under a tree in the woods.
     They are such lovely funerals, we still have them here quite often in Oxfordshire, with the flag over the coffin and all that. Thanks, Tony!
     Blair deluded himself that he was bringing democracy to other parts of the world. Meanwhile Blair threw away democracy in this country as fast as he could. He introduced detention without charge, for up to 90 days, which is an attack on basic civil liberties. For thirteen years, he signed away more and more powers to the EU and let our companies struggle under the burden of more and more regulations. Blair smiled at the EU mandarins ingratiatingly, showed off his schoolboy French and he even handed back some of the rebate so painstakingly obtained by Margaret Thatcher.

              Gordon Brown signing away our rights in the Lisbon Treaty.

        Brown as chancellor had a decade to do something to regulate the banks and the city. Look what a good job they made of it there. Massive crashes and extortionate bail-outs leaving us in debt for fifty years to come  - maybe forever. Brown was very happy to ask no questions of Fred Goodwin and co so long as the wheels kept turning and the tax kept rolling in, so that he could spend it.  Labour set up an online system for people to claim benefits more easily and conveniently. So easily and conveniently that within a year, hundreds of millions of pounds had been swindled out of the treasury. All people had to do was to set up multiple, fake identities with a bank account and then sit back and rake the money in.
     Those who read Private Eye will recall the interminable scandal of the NHS computer system, that cost the tax-payer so many tens of millions of pounds, and could never, ever be made to work properly. The fact that it interpreted everybody's birthdate in the American order (month, day, year) led to thousands of patients being mixed up and then denied treatment when they arrived at appointments. My own records were lost for over a year because of this date of birth glitch. All this happened under Labour.
    Has Mr Hunt forgotten Brown's gaff over the 10p tax band? I never will. It was a policy that he sprang apparently without any prior scrutiny. Then he was surprised when those on lower incomes protested at having to pay more.
    The triumphant finale of the Labour government was the expenses scandal. A government led by the likes of "Lord" Mandelson (twice removed from office for his own shenanigans) presided over one of the greediest bunch of crooks ever to sit in the House of Commons. While crime soared and educational standards plummeted, they filled in forms claiming extra money for refurbishing their holiday homes.
     When it comes to "total inability to govern" Labour holds all the Olympic medals. Mr Hunt's smugness suggests that he is completely out of touch.

Discrimination and Equality

I have just written the following letter to my MP Andrew Smith, asking him to pass my query to Maria Miller. the Minister for Women and so-called Equalities. I have circulated it to friends suggesting that they wrote to their MPs likewise, and I have passed it over to the conservative MP David Burrowes too. We will see what their response is.

Justice? Fairness? Doesn't look fair or equal to me.

Dear Andrew,

   I would like to you to send this complaint to the Minister for

Women and Equality. It seems that there are a number of bed and

breakfast businesses registered in the UK that only take women and

lesbian couples. They advertise this quite openly, in fact there are

websites of so-called "gay accommodation"

 Example:-

http://www.gayaccommodationcornwall.co.uk/lesbian-self-catering-holiday-cottages-apartments-cornwall.htm

This is a form of discrimination that is particularly offensive in

view of the extreme penalties that have been recently handed out to B

& Bs that did not want to rent a double-bedded room to a same-sex

couple.

This double standard is offensive. The B & B run by Mr and Mrs Bull in

Cornwall has been bankrupted because it is now excluded from lists of

accommodation. They were forced to pay compensation and high legal

fees which they could not afford. They are not permitted to advertise

unless they take homosexuals, and there was similar case in Hampshire.

Yet the homosexuals blatantly practice discrimination and exclusion.

         I want the law to be applied equally in all cases and any

business that tries to limit itself to homosexuals  - whether it is a

club, a hotel, a website, a holiday company, or anything else  - must

be fined, penalized and if it will not cater for open heterosexuals,

closed down.

         Please send this letter to the Minister, Maria Miller.

                           Yours sincerely,

                                           Julia Gasper.

Stephen Fry Talks "Gay" Bullshit

When will the self-important, conceited Stephen Fry learn to shut up? He thinks he is the world expert on everything, including, it seems, women's sexuality. Funny, I thought he was homosexual...well he is, but he still thinks he can pontificate about women he has never met and who would rather die than go to bed with such a fat, crooked-nosed twit.
In an interview with Paul Flynn, Fry announced that women don't really enjoy sex. Oh, really? Since fucking when? Fry argued that women can't enjoy sex because we don't go cruising around Hampstead Heath or public lavatories looking for casual encounters with strangers, as he and his "gay" friends apparently do. He even went so far as to say that women in relationships only participate in sex because it is the price of getting a man to hang around with.
       This guy is seriously stupid and completely cuckoo. He really cannot imagine any other kind of sexual taste, temperament or behaviour apart from that of his chums and buddies. He thinks that women are strange because we are not as emotionally stunted, defective in bonding instinct and lacking in human sensitivity as he is. He has no idea of the feminine mindset, or of the natural link-up between emotional and physical intimacy. Even if he is that dense, why doesn't he read a book about it? 
     Fry was apparently under the impression that his ravings are witty. He has nearly two million followers on Twitter and hosts far too many television programmes. He presides unctuously over his QI show, smug and always very pleased with himself, making gross jokes that often have a connection with the digestive tract. We are all forced to pay the television license fee that keeps this man in a job. He regularly boasts about how he was jailed as a teenager for credit card theft. He even drones on in public about the fact that he is mentally ill - hardly necessary as I had already noticed.
 It is high time this overpaid, overweight, overrated clown retired.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8099784/Stephen-Fry-angers-feminists-by-claiming-women-do-not-enjoy-sex.html

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=286281954839671&set=a.217332521734615.56689.217326641735203&type=1&theater