Thursday, 29 May 2014

BBC Churns out the Same old Wallpaper

Apparently we're all supposed to be very excited about the twelfth Dr Who appearing next August. Despite the fact that he's got a time machine, he still can't get the new series completed before next August. How much longer will the BBC go on making more and more episodes of this terminally tedious series and pretending that it is a National Treasure? If you are one of the conscientious people who actually pay their TV licence fee, you should be annoyed by this waste of money. The increasingly scary effects, the horror-movie trimmings, the speeded up sequences and the loud explosions of the modern Dr Who do not conceal a complete lack of new ideas or imagination. Dr Who is predictable, corny and sexist. It often sounds like just the same scripts re-cycled time after time-machine.
            Of course Dr Who is a cult, People talk about the "incarnations" of Dr Who, as if he was the Dalai Lama. There are Dr Who calendars, diaries, pop-up books and computer games for those who never tire of the clich├ęs.
           The first episode of Dr Who, "An Unearthly Child", went out more than fifty years ago in 1963. The Doctor was then a white haired old man, the archetypal mad scientist, with a young grand-daughter called Susan. She accidentally led two of her teachers back to the Tardis, which started suddenly and took them all back to the Stone Age, where by remarkable coincidence they arrived just outside one of the caves occupied by the tiny population of homo sapiens then to be found scattered across the globe. The idea was not new  - it was taken of course from the novel by H.G.Wells  - and all possible variations on it had surely been exhausted by the third or fourth series. Ever since then, it has dragged on by bringing back one or other of its familiar baddies and monsters - the Daleks, the cybermen, the giant spiders or whatever. Dr Who has attempted homespun philosophy and even some crude political satire, it has borrowed motifs from myth and legend and even aspired to become an epic of good versus evil, but it always relapses very soon into the familiar melodrama with the Doctor and his companion running down endless passageways and stopping only to have their hair shampooed and blow-dried by a studio team just behind the scenery.

       Over the decades, Dr Who has grown steadily younger and more virile, reflecting the change in our culture which no longer values or respects the old. He has to have a side-kick who is an attractive female, never an equal in intelligence or experience, and getting more like a concubine with every series. Some rather good actors have played the lead role including David Tennant who was quite wrong for it, and John Hurt. Almost incredibly, they have now signed up Peter Capaldi, who should be playing James Bond, never mind Dr Who. That man has got the wrong agent. Many of us wouldn't mind seeing him on TV but please, please  - not as Dr Who.

Friday, 23 May 2014

Follower of Burke or Just a Silly Berk? The Arrogance of Conor Burns MP

Conor Burns, Conservative MP for Bournemouth West, has written an amazingly arrogant letter to one of his constituents, telling him that it is not an MP's duty to represent his voters. Yes, that is what he says. That it's NOT an MP's job to represent the electors. In the opinion of Mr Burns, an MP is there to follow his own superior judgment, and the views of the people who voted for him can go hang.
What then is the point of voting for him?

Contact Conor Burns MP
Get in Touch with Conor!
 What is curious is that on his website, Mr Burns says,

 "Conor Burns is the ConservativeMember of Parliament for Bournemouth West, Branksome East and Alderney. He lives in Westbourne in Bournemouth West. He has pledged to be a community-focused MP who works as a voice in Westminster for his constituents, putting them before anything else."

He hypocritically invites you to "Get in Touch with Conor!" and shows a photo of himself on the telephone with his sleeves rolled up in a business-like way. He purports to be seeking the opinions of his constituents on every subject. You are invited to write to him and tell him what you think about the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposals. Doubtless when you have told him, he will disregard your input because he is not there just to represent you. He is there to impose his superior judgment. 
Mr Burns' letter reveals an egregious vanity. He cannot resist boasting about "my friend Mrs Thatcher" - whom in fact he hardly knew, as he was only elected to the House of Commons in 2010, by which time she was retired even from the House of Lords, and was in her declining years. The letter is doubly absurd because in ignoring his voters' wishes he claims to be acting in an "unbiassed" fashion. Yet the issue on which he was refusing to follow his constituents' expressed preference was same-sex marriage, and Mr Burns is a homosexual who is notorious for lobbying for special rights for homosexuals. He has used his influence to get the Home Office to allow immigrants into this country simply on the grounds of their sexual orientation. "Unbiassed" is the last thing anyone could call him.
His letter, dated 30th March 2013, admits that there was little pressure coming from most homosexuals in England for removing the distinction between marriage and a civil partnership. He says it was not a priority for "the gay community", that all-important 1.5% of the population, and they were not "clamouring" for it. He also admits that he had received many letters from his constituents in Bournemouth West opposing the idea and urging him to vote against it. Yet he felt no obligation to represent those voters.
Mr Burns represented only himself. Regarding the letters from his constituents, he has no more sophisticated method of argument than to dismiss their views in the predictable gay way as "hatred and bigotry".
To justify his high-and-mighty attitude, Mr Burns quotes from the 18th-century writer Edmund Burke, whom doubtless he read as a set text when he was studying Politics at Southampton University. This speech of Burke is available in the convenient Penguin pocket volume The Portable Edmund Burke, so quoting it does not indicate very profound learning on Mr Burns' part.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

But there are many other things that Edmund Burke said that Mr Burns seems to have overlooked. For instance, "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." That sounds like a good description of the kind of government we now have, that passes laws without any proper mandate from the electorate. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Plenty of contemporary application there.
And here is Burke giving what could be a remarkably perceptive description of the "gay community":-

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice and madness, without tuition or restraint.

And finally, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I suggest that the good men and women of Bournemouth West get together next year and vote for another MP in the place of Mr Burns, one who does see it as their job to represent the voters and who has read more of Burke than you can find in a pocket digest.

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

A Nationwide 2-minute Silence for Lee Rigby on May 22nd

Thursday May 22nd is the first anniversary of the brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich.  His appallingly barbaric killing should have shaken at least a few people out of their complacent lethargy. Please stop whatever else you are doing, stand still and observe 2 minutes' silence as a mark of respect.

Monday, 19 May 2014

Nick Clegg to Get an Angry Reception in Oxford Tomorrow

An Oxford student group is organizing a protest for Deputy PM Nick Clegg when he visits tomorrow to attend a pre-election question-and-answer session in central Oxford. The event is hosted by the Oxford Mail and Oxford Liberal Democrats. Oxford Activist Network is angered by the invitation and plans to disrupt the event, arguing on the authority of no less than the philosopher John Locke that Clegg has betrayed the trust of the people and therefore is no longer to be regarded as having any legitimate authority.

The case for kicking Clegg out of Oxford

"We, students in Oxford, do not forget. We do not forget that in 2008 Nick Clegg said: “will I ever join a Conservative government? NO.” We do not forget that in 2010 Nick Clegg pledged to oppose tuition fees, oppose a VAT increase, and oppose immediate cuts in public spending. We do not forget that millions of people, many of them students, lent the Liberal Democrats their votes on the basis of these promises. And we do not forget that at the first whiff of power Nick Clegg dumped his pledges to us, trebled tuition fees, and leapt into bed with the Conservatives. Nick Clegg’s continued parliamentary support enables David Cameron to pass regressive legislation from the benefit cap to the bedroom tax, punishing the poorest for an economic crisis created by the wealthy. Clegg presides over a divided nation, with taxes cut for the rich while prices rise, pay is squeezed and debts grow for the rest of us. He has sold out our generation."

Aylon Cohen of OAN argues that students are now justified in denying Clegg a platform, because of this betrayal of trust. The rally begins outside the Taylorian at 2.45 pm. Rotten tomatoes can be picked up conveniently in the nearby covered market ready for Mr Clegg's arrival.

Monday, 12 May 2014

The Confused Belligerence of Mr Derek Crawford Munn

Here is my reply to Mr Derek Crawford Munn who keeps sending me rude messages on Facebook accusing me of something he cannot spell. 
Dear Mr Derek Crawford Munn (I hope that is enough titles for you as you insist on formality)
    I am delighted that you have decided to vote for Scottish Independence and I just wish you could do it sooner. Why should we in England go on paying for so much of your health treatment when Scottish people are overweight, unfit and heavy drinkers? Why should you have access to expensive drugs on the NHS when we in England don't get them? Why should we pay for your free universities while our children face high fees and debt? Why should we be ruled by your Labour votes and you get more money per head out of the taxes we pay? Why should so many English ship-building jobs be moved to Scotland to ensure those Labour votes?
    You say you don't like my brand of "facism" (sic)  - well that 's a coincidence as I don't like your brand of LGBT fascism. Please note the spelling. The word comes from the Latin fasces, which explains its origins. I don't like the way you homo-fascists bullied Brendan Eich out of his job. And the same goes for Sarah Mbuyi, Adrian Smith, Lesley Pilkington, Kwabena Peat, Hans Raabe, Donald Perry, Mark Jackson, Mary Stachowicz, Suzanne and Mike Wilkinson, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, and a long, long list of others who have been bullied, sacked, victimized, vandalized and killed for simply wishing to follow their own beliefs instead of having yours forced down their throats. What you are doing to them is just like what the Nazi party did to people who would not join.

Kwabena Peat

Secondly, you object to me saying there are links between homosexuality and paedophilia. You will be even more angry to learn I have written articles exposing paedophile activities and connections of prominent LGBT activists that the mainstream media will not report. Larry Brinkin for example...and Peter Tatchell.
Clearly this makes some of your pink friends very angry and pink in the face. You won't find news like that on the BBC or in the newspapers  - because they are censored.
Sarah Mbuyi, bullied by homosexuals

Thirdly, I am not at all "ignorant" about the details of the Holocaust in WW2 and I have based my article (which of course you have not read!) on the most meticulous academic research available, research only recently translated into English from the German. I have compared that conscientious research with the rubbish "spouted" (to use your term) by LGBT and left-wing websites. And yes, the LGBT websites that you take for history are showing you MANY examples of Jewish people and telling you that they were victimized for "being gay". So the breathtaking ignorance is on your side.

You will probably not read it, because a small mind soon reaches its capacity and you appear to have reached yours!

Mary Stachowicz, murdered by homo-fanatics

Fourthly, the so-called "hate-crimes" you refer to in Russia, Uganda etc are frauds. Yes, frauds. Matthew Shepard was a fraud, David Kato was a fraud, gay-burning in Uganda is a fraud...they're all frauds. Read my article here about the latest one.

Yes, there is a 
propaganda industry and it doesn't happen by accident.

And finally, you say that free speech for you means the ability to "shout down" and silence other people around the globe. Free speech to you means only free speech for those who agree with you! Free speech to you means censorship. Free speech to you means gagging other people, just as the Anglican Mainstream campaign and Coalition for Marriage was gagged in 2012- 1013. It means bullying and intimidating others, stabbing them as Samuel Lafont and his friends were stabbed. It means shooting people, as Floyd Lee Corkins, another LGBT militant, did in Washington D.C. He just walked into a building and shot the first person he saw there. You want to take away the democratic rights of others. You want to kill everyone who disagrees! That is just why YOU are a fascist, Mr Derek Crawford Munn. The hatred, the ignorance and the attack on Human Rights is coming from you. Yours etc.

Dear Dr Gasper.
I am a 56 year old Gay man living in Glasgow.
I have been in two minds how to vote in the upcoming Independence referendum.
Thank you for making the decision for me.
If voting Yes will in future allow Scots to ensure that the brand of Facism you have recently spouted in your Blog never comes to Scotland, then it is YES all the way for me.
UKIP may be gaining a foothold in England, but it will never gain favour in Scotland, I would stand as an MSP myself, on that singular platform, rather than see the kind of hate [no you mean hatred  - hatred is a noun, hate is the verb] that you espouse be perpetrated [hatred can't be perpetrated, it's a motive not an action], here.

Below, some of the views that prompted my posting to your page.

Derek Crawford Munn Dear Dr Gasper, I have a feeling that our definitions of Free Speech may differ somewhat. The OED defines it as, 'the right to express one's opinions publicly'. Now unless I've misread that rather spectacularly, for the life of me i can't see where it goes on to say that anyone has the right to spout false Facist propaganda. To suggest that 50% of Gay people are paedophiles,[which of course I have never said!! trust Pink News to get it wrong] and are embarked on an 'indoctrination campaign', is not only simply ridiculous [not at all the indoctrination campaign is fact and your own notions are the result of it], it is also hugely insulting to a very large sector of the community [No you are not a "very large sector", you are just a tiny aggressive sector. According to the Office of National Statistics, homosexuals are only 1.5% of the population.  LGBT activists are only a fraction of that. You think you are being insulted because you are vain]. Secondly to actually voice the notion that the thousands Gay ["gay" does not need a capital letter. You think you are sacred!] people put to death during the holocaust,[Holocaust does usually have a capital letter] were only murdered because they were Jewish too, is nothing less than breathtaking in it's [you don't need an apostrophe] ignorance. Free speech of the kind you espouse, has murdered millions, and is responsible for continuing hate crimes around the globe, Russia, Uganda, Brunei.[mostly fakes of course]....The list goes on....... Free speech for me will always represent the ability to comment, shout down, and fight against your brand of thinly veiled Facism, Homophobia and hate. PS. I would be most grateful, if you decide to engage in any further correspondence, if you would kindly give me my full title, Mr Derek Crawford Munn , I wouldn't want anyone to mistake us for acquaintances. DCM.

Like · 

Why My Christian Aid Money Will be Going to England This Year

Usually I give money when the Christian Aid people come round knocking on my door. I allow them to twist my arm and take a donation inside a sealed envelope, trusting them to use it for benevolent purposes. But this year I am so fed up of hearing people say "There is no real poverty in England," that I am going to distribute the money here. Charity begins at home...well it's going to this time.
   Yes, there is real hardship in England, and I don't only mean the people whose homes and lives have been devastated by the floods, though many of them are still suffering and will be feeling the pinch financially for years ahead. My help will go to people in two categories  - either the old, or ex-service personnel who are injured, unemployed or homeless.
  They are not the only ones in need, but they are the people whose contribution to their country has been most shockingly disregarded and unrewarded. It is shameful that people who worked and paid National Insurance for forty years or more now get a tiny pension they cannot live on, or are told they must wait several more years to claim anything. And that people who have undergone tough training and taken appalling risks to serve in Tony Blair's two long pointless wars, come back shell-shocked, sometimes maimed for life, to find that they are unable to get either a job or a home. They serve in the front line, risking their lives and then they are cynically chucked out three days before becoming eligible for a full pension. 

   There are elderly people who have to go on working despite suffering from failing eyesight, failing hearing, severe arthritis, rheumatism and other diseases - even cancer - but can't claim a pension, or can't live on the one they are begrudging given. We have some of the lowest pensions in Europe and unless there is some major upheaval in the politics and government of this country, I foresee that all state pensions will be stopped altogether.
       So Age Concern will get a big chunk of my "Christian Aid" and the rest will go to The Soldiers' Charity. It will help people like this, who are paying an appalling price for Tony Blair's mistakes. 

People like Andy Reid

In 2009, whilst on patrol with 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment in Afghanistan, Andy stood on a pressure plate IED. As a result of the explosion, he lost his right leg below the knee, left leg above the knee, and right arm.
After being flown back to the UK, Andy astounded people with his recovery by only spending only 2 weeks in hospital. However before he could go home there was an urgent need for it to be made wheelchair accessible. The Soldiers' Charity made an immediate grant to pay for a wheelchair ramp, alterations to the front entrance and a bed downstairs.
Since then our charity’s relationship with Andy has continued to develop; Andy has become a passionate ambassador for the Charity, helping us to raise much needed funds and awareness. He’s done two tandem skydives, taken part in the St Helen’s 10K Run, abseiled down the Big One in Blackpool and held his own Big Curry in his home town of St Helen's. Andy has now been medically discharged from the Army and in late 2012 became a father to little William. 
Andy says ‘After my discharge I chose to become even more involved with The Soldiers’ Charity because they support the full spectrum of the Army family. I have met amazing and inspirational people who test their physical and mental limit to raise much needed funds for others. I keep pushing myself forward to show other guys injured in service what can be done, that it’s not the end of the world and you can carry on as normal a life as possible’.

BBC asks for Feedback

Hard to stay polite isn't it?
Yes, I do think the BBC is a waste of public money, corrupt, unreliable and a very biassed corporation, though funnily enough your survey did not provide any questions about that or any boxes to tick!
Dear Dr Gasper
Case Reference - C---2---------G--------
We would love to know what you thought of your recent experience contacting the BBC. 

Would you be interested in taking part in a short customer survey?

Audiences are at the heart of everything we do and we are always looking to improve the service we offer to our viewers and listeners. We would welcome your feedback. Our short survey is conducted by an independent agency and will take around 10 minutes to complete. If you would be interested in taking part, please access the questionnaire using our instructions below.

Please click (once only – do not “double-click”) on this hyperlink or paste it into your browser:

Sunday, 11 May 2014

BBC = Be Beastly to Children

I hear that the BBC has been investigating a terrible outbreak of immorality in the English Democrat Party. They have denounced me.

rossiterWhen I want to hear the moral judgements of a pack of disgusting paedophiles and rapists, I will ask for it. That's a promise!

Friday, 9 May 2014

Homo-fascists Try to Pose as Nice Guys

When you have used every dirty tactic, every form of bullying and abuse, every violation of the democratic process, to impose your agenda on other people, it is rather distasteful to pretend that you still have any respect for "liberal" values of tolerance, diversity, and freedom. That is just what the Gaystapo is now doing. Fifty LGBT gangsters who have no intention of giving back what they stole are now posing as nice guys by saying that the campaign to re-define (in fact un-define) marriage should have been conducted in a more civilized way. Er...really?

Samuel Lafont, one of dozens of victims of LGBT violence, stabbed nearly fatally in Paris 2013 for attending a peaceful demonstration to defend real marriage.

Yes, the queer thugs and gangsters who used violence, threats, censorship, abuse, and every form of dirty tactic are now saying that they feel a twinge of guilt about the appalling treatment of Brendan Eich (see earlier blogs)

Every day the population is bombarded with LGBT propaganda, carefully doctored news items, posters, some of them downright offensive, and fraudulent claims of persecution world wide. This endless indoctrination takes place in schools with pupils aged 5 upwards. Yet when Anglican Mainstream, the Christian organization, tried to display its own posters across London in 2012 and 2013, the companies who were displaying them had to withdraw them because of the blatant death-threats of queer gangsters. They were not content to vandalise the posters, they threatened physical attacks on the advertising firms, their families and their homes. Many conservative MPs such as David Burrowes got death-threats sent to them. And the homosexual MP Alan Duncan even made death-threats on TV to anyone who disagreed with his agenda.
One message sent to me personally read "I'd like to throttle you, keep your body in my basement and do gay stuff to it, then chop it up into little pieces and feed them to a dog."
"We're here and we're queer, and we govern by fear!!!"
Without a doubt, the Kray twins are the definitive model of "gay" behaviour.

Freedom to Marry & Dissent, Rightly Understood
By Ryan T. Anderson & Robert P. George
Historically and across cultures, marriage has been the institution that unites a man and woman as husband and wife to be father and mother to children born of their union, providing their offspring with the distinctive contributions of paternal and maternal care and influence. That understanding of marriage shaped its structuring norms, including the norm of sexual complementarity that has been found always and everywhere.
Yesterday this understanding of marriage was common sense; today it is dangerous heresy to an ever-more Inquisitorial cultural elite: Support for marriage as a male-female union has swiftly become, among the mandarins of culture, the most hated position on the most heated question.

In April, more than 50 scholars and leaders, all self-identified same-sex marriage supporters, called their allies to higher moral ground. Prompted by the bullying of Brendan Eich and his resignation as CEO of Mozilla for his 2008 donation to California's Proposition 8 campaign, they wrote to decry the "deeply illiberal impulse" to "punish rather than to criticize or to persuade" political dissenters. Because "opposition to gay marriage" can be "expressed respectfully," they urged, it should not be "a punishable offense." No one should lose a job for "holding a wrong opinion." Trying to purge the workplace or the public square of dissent is, as they see it, political "oppress[ion]."
As supporters of marriage as the union of husband and wife, we applaud the signatories'support for a free society. In any healthy civic order, citizens will be able to disagree with each other even about important matters without intimidation and recrimination. The right to dissent will be honored and those who express dissent will be respected not bullied into submission or silence. We thank the signatories of "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent" for their defense of civility.
We also agree with them that the future of marriage needs to be a matter of robust public debate. That's why it's important for these and other supporters of same-sex marriage -- indeed for all Americans -- to engage the serious arguments in this debate.
We write to make three points.
1. It is rational to support marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and supporters of same-sex marriage should stand up and say so, condemning attempts to disparage belief in marriage as a conjugal partnership as irrational -- the moral and intellectual equivalent of racism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry.
The statement issued last month falls short of such a declaration, lacking a clear acknowledgment that those with the contrary view hold a rationally defensible position.
The distinguished political theorist Peter Berkowitz faulted the authors of the statement for precisely this failure:
The signatories of "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent" do not go so far as to acknowledge the merit in arguments against same-sex marriage. ... their public statement indicates that in their view their opponents have little to say that is reasonable. Unwavering in their commitment to same-sex marriage, they imply that those who disagree are at best benighted, ignorant, or confused.
Indeed, by suggesting that support for marriage as a union of husband and wife is simply opposition to the cause of "gay equality," the signatories seem to share -- and certainly say nothing to reject -- the idea that opposition cannot be rational; that only ignorance or animus could motivate it; that it is ultimately a matter of bigotry.
Yet these are precisely the false and pernicious ideas that motivated the persecutors of Brendan Eich. In fact, Eich's case is nothing new. For years, lawmakers and cultural leaders have treated supporters of marriage as it has always existed as irrational and bigoted -- as enemies of basic human rights. And in this they were only taking the movement for "marriage equality" at its word. They were giving effect to a premise that many leading marriage-redefinition advocates have long championed. In criticizing the recent statement, Jonah Goldberg has observed:
If you've spent a decade or more advancing the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and other Jim Crow laws, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise when people who bought your argument then go out and apply its ruthless and unforgiving logic.
Indeed, if views on marriage as the union of man and woman are intellectually and morally like laws against inter-racial marriage, why should such views be treated with civility and respect?
Some of the signatories have always rejected the equating of conjugal marriage laws with laws against interracial marriage; perhaps others now regret ever drawing that equivalence -- though, if they do, they ought to say so. Indeed, all supporters of same-sex marriage should now repudiate it. Failing that, those who embrace the arguments for same-sex marriage are likely to continue trying to stigmatize their opponents in an effort to drive them to the margins of public life where our culture rightly deposits its haters and bigots.
2. The government should not discriminate against or coerce those who speak and act on the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Policy should protect the rights of individuals and groups to honor their conscientious judgments on the central question in the debate: What is marriage?.
The statement denounces the bullying of Brendan Eich even though that bulling involved no "formal legal sanction." Yet legal sanctions have already been used to coerce people and institutions to violate their conscientious judgments about the nature of marriage. Citizens have not only a right to hold and voice opinions about marriage, but also a right to live by those views.
For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. But does that freedom require the government to coerce people, against their consciences, into participating in or facilitating celebrations of same-sex relationships? In a growing number of incidents, the redefinition of marriage and state policies adding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to the lists of protected classes under non-discrimination statutes have led to the intolerance and intimidation of citizens who believe that marriage unites a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates, it seems, were in many cases engaged in a deception when they claimed that their causes was one of "live and let live."
Now citizens who persist in dissent from the new elite orthodoxy are facing a new wave ofgovernment coercion and discrimination. State laws regarding sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene Flowers. In March 2013, longtime customers of hers asked her to arrange flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. As a matter of conscience, Stutzman had to decline because of her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. While she was happy to arrange and sell them flowers for any other occasion, as she had for nine years, she could not in conscience use her artistic skills to help celebrate a same-sex ceremony.
A month later, Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state's sexual-orientation antidiscrimination law. The state of Washington is seeking a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Barronelle to prepare such arrangements against her conscience. In his zeal for the same-sex marriage cause, Ferguson has decided to use the power of the state to crush an opponent -- treating her precisely as if her views make her the equivalent of a racist in the Jim Crow south.
Stutzman is not the only small-business owner whose religious liberty is at risk. Families across the country are being hauled into court for living by their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Cake makers, photographers, family bakeries, and adoption agencies, among others, have faced penalties and lawsuits or been driven out of business for working in accordance with their faith.
State and federal policy must respect Americans' ability to live and work in keeping with their beliefs about marriage. While Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should be compelled against conscience to facilitate a same-sex sexual bond. Opposing such sexual partnerships on conscientious moral grounds is not the equivalent of racism. And yet last month's open letter completely ignored this concern.
3. The terms "marriage equality" and the "freedom to marry" sidestep the central issue of what marriage is.
Appeals to "marriage equality" are good sloganeering, not good reasoning. Every law -- every marriage policy -- draws lines. Equality before the law protects citizens from arbitrary line-drawing, from laws that treat them differently for no good reason. To know whether a law makes the right distinctions -- whether the lines it draws are justified -- one has to know its public purpose and the nature of the good that it serves.
Now that, in many states, the law is treating same-sex couples as spouses, will some people argue that it still fails to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly -- do they lack freedom and equalityand are they and their children stigmatized -- when government does not recognize their consensual romantic bonds as marriage and allow them to file taxes jointly?
It's not just that the phrases "marriage equality" and "freedom to marry" are elastic; some are using such flexible thinking about marriage to push its redefinition beyond just couples. This is not merely hypothetical. In 2009, Newsweek reported that there were over 500,000 polyamorous households in America. Prominent scholars and leading LGBT activists have publicly called for legal recognition for multipartner relationships since at least 2006. What basis of principle could distinguish their claim from that of the same-sex couple?
A certain type of polyamorous relationship has even motivated advocates to create the wordthrouple, which is similar to "couple" but involves three people. The word appeared in a 2012 article in New York magazine. And in late April a New York Post headline read:"Married lesbian 'throuple' expecting first child." It is not clear why "marriage equality" and the "freedom to marry" do not require recognizing their bond. Based on what principle, consistent with a denial that marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife, can one refuse to deem their relationship a marriage?
As we note in our book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, we have yet to see a plausible argument that explains why governments can treat these bonds differently, without depriving them of "marriage equality" or the "freedom to marry." Once you say defining marriage as the union of a man and woman is irrational and arbitrary, solely the result of animus as Justice Kennedy suggested, what is magical about twosomes? Monogamy in Western law and culture reflects the fact that it takes a man and a woman to create a new life, and every new life has one mother and one father. Marriage is the relationship that unites these people in a permanent and exclusive union. But those suggesting the male-female aspect is arbitrary have yet to provide an argument for why monogamy, exclusivity, or permanency must remain. We and others have posed such challenges for years. Some prominent marriage revisionists -- from Gloria Steinem to Kenji Yoshino -- have effectively conceded those challenges, accepting the consequence that we all must treat these other consensual bonds as marriages or the equivalent.
Answering the question "What is marriage?" would go a long way toward advancing the discussion to which both signers of last month's letter and we remain committed. And it would be a powerful acknowledgment of the complexity of this issue -- of why it is one on which decent people disagree, and toward which political punishment is oppression.
Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Robert P. George is McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. Along with Sherif Girgis they are co-authors of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

Thursday, 8 May 2014

LibDems and Conservatives Steal English Democrat Party Policies

In public they revile you, abuse you and treat you with contempt. In private, they search through your manifesto and steal its ideas!
Yes, the old political parties are so bankrupt of ideas and so desperate to get back the disillusioned voters that they are rifling through the manifesto of the English Democrats Party and its website and STEALING our policies. 
Or at least they are making promises to adopt them...and you know how well the old parties keep their promises.

Here are just a few recent examples:
>Our long-held policy of devolving substantial government expenditure to the Counties has been proposed now by both Heseltine and recently by Ed Milliband. Neither of them have any idea of just how much expenditure the English Democrats will devolve. Doing it our way will decentralise government in England and remove Westminster's stranglehold on the rest of the country. Are the other parties really likely to allow power to be devolved away from Westminster and the huge, cash-hungry, machine called central government?

>Nick Clegg now seems to have discovered that we should be asking all new immigrants to deposit a sum of money when they arrive (he 
mentioned £3k - 10k). This would cover the cost of the infrastructure in hospitals, schools, roads and so on, required for their use. [In France this is a legal requirement and has been for a very long time regardless of EU laws. You are not allowed to work there without paying first. The policy is upheld by the trades unions.] The English Democrats have long said that immigrants should pay a lump-sum to cover the investments in infrastructure made by those already in the country. However we all know how good the Lib Dems are at honouring any promise they make prior to an election.

English Revolt 1381

In Kent the Lib Dems tried to undermine local Candidates’ popular appeal to English Independence by inferring that this is a vote for a ‘Little England’ and not a vote for Great Britain! David Cameron has cast the same slur on the English. The term "Little Englander" came into use to label those people in England who did not want to get involved in foreign colonial wars. English Democrats are proud to be of the same view.
-In March we held our spring conference in Dartford with a theme that looked back to the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and we launched our EU campaign in Fobbing, the Essex village where the revolt reportedly started. Imagine our surprise a week ago to see Christine Hamilton on BBC's This Week claiming the revolt as a UKIP idea. Nothing could be less convincing than Christine Hamilton claiming to be an English peasant. And nothing demonstrates UKIP's lack of any serious ideas and new thinking.

The Political establishment understand that they are largely devoid of new ways of thinking through problems. There is very little fresh thinking on our current problems in Westminster. Traditional parties are tied to their ideologies and lack the freedom that being part of this establishment has blinkered them to anything else.

The Fascists are on the Left - more on the Brendan Eich Case

Newt Gingrich called it an "open, blatant example of the new fascism," Charles Krauthammer called it "totalitarian," Pat Buchanan labeled it "the new blacklist" and RedState headlined it as "a fascist purge."
And it wasn't just conservatives sounding the alarm. Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the "gay mafia," and even well-known "gay" media personalities condemned it, Andrew Sullivan saying it "disgusts me" and radio talker Tammy Bruce calling out the "gay gestapo."
They were referring, of course, to the forced resignation of tech prodigy Brendan Eich as CEO of the company he co-founded, Mozilla, developer of the popular Firefox Web browser, all because he had donated $1,000 to California's Proposition 8 upholding traditional marriage.
Everyone knows the Eich story [pity that is not true - the British mainstream media has largely ignored it ] - and almost everyone, it seems, condemns it, [no they don't, the LGBTs are jumping up and down in malignant triumph] as though it were a singular injustice in today's America.

But, as revealed in the May issue of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, Brendan Eich, far from being a unique or especially shocking case, is just one of a growing multitude of Americans whose lives and livelihoods are being intentionally crushed by "The New Fascism."

"What could be stranger," comments Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, on the stunning hypocrisy of today's left, "than witnessing the ongoing 'fundamental transformation' of America at the hands of
people claiming to stand for fairness, tolerance, diversity, free speech and the common man - yet who unfailingly end up taking us, kicking and screaming, in the exact opposite direction?"

The most obvious example, of course, is Barack Obama. Having promised to be the most honest, transparent, post-racial and non-ideological president ever, Obama is almost universally regarded as the least honest, least transparent, most racial and most ideological president in history. Likewise, forces of the left - like the college professor who recently called for the imprisonment of global-warming deniers - grow increasingly fanatical in their intolerance of the basic freedoms of Americans who don't share their views.

However, of all the various regions of the left, there is no quarter where free speech and diversity are less tolerated - and more viciously persecuted - than in the powerful, well-funded and pervasive "LGBT" movement. After reading Whistleblower's<>
"THE NEW FASCISM," readers will understand why even "mainstream"
pundits and personalities from both left and right are characterizing
what is now happening in America as "totalitarian," "gestapo"-like and
"fascist."Highlights of <>

- Show quoted text -


In Whistleblower's


"THE NEW FASCISM" issue, Rush Limbaugh provides a spine-straightening summary of the left's current slash-and-burn strategy toward Americans with traditional Judeo-Christian values:

"These people - they claim that all this is how they are inclusive and
this is how they're promoting diversity - and they're not. They are
exclusionary. There's no diversity tolerated here. You've gotta be one
way. There is no openness.

"There is no kindness, there is no compassion, there's no
inclusiveness, and there certainly isn't any diversity on the left.
It's just a bunch of brownshirts. And if you are not wearing one, you
either soon will be, or you're gonna be ruined. There is no dissent.
They have no interest in debating anybody. They have no interest in
discussing anything. If you disagree with them, you die -
figuratively. You're dead. You don't exist."

Adds WND's Kupelian: "It's time for traditionally minded Americans -
not only conservatives, Christians, Republicans, libertarians and
independents, but also principled Democrats and liberals - to realize
that the radical left has declared war on them. This issue of
Whistleblower will take you behind the scenes and expose their tactics
and strategies, as well as point the way to victory and a restoration of the America our forefathers gave us."

SPECIAL OFFER: For a limited time, subscribe to Whistleblower, renew   or give a gift subscription&
 for one year and you'll get $10 off the already discounted rate (pay only $39.95 instead of the usual $49.95), plus you'll receive TWO free gifts:
First, you'll get a FREE hardcover copy of David Kupelian's classicbestseller,
"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom."
Now in its 14th printing, 
"The Marketing of Evil" remains one of the nation's most popular
culture-war books for the unique and crystal-clear way in which it documents the brilliant marketing strategies and tactics used to transform America.

"Within the space of our lifetime," writes Kupelian, "much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed and gift-wrapped, and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil."

"The Marketing of Evil" has been widely acclaimed as a must-read:
Sean Hannity: "David Kupelian is one of the most thought-provoking and iconoclastic writers I know. Agree or disagree, David is a must-read if you want to really understand the world we live in and where it's headed."
Hal Lindsey: "If you want to know how such a thoroughly decent country as America could go so wrong so fast, you simply have to read 'The Marketing of Evil.'"
Michelle Malkin: "Every parent in America needs to read this book. David Kupelian skillfully exposes the secular left's rotten apple peddlers in devastating detail."
David Limbaugh: "If you really want to understand the adversary's thinking and help turn the tide of battle, read this book!"
Rabbi Daniel Lapin: "Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, 'The Marketing of Evil' irresistibly exposes how it was done.
It will elicit an involuntary 'Aha!' from you as you discover who did it and your soul will soar with optimism as you discover the only way we can undo it."

(A $24.95 value, yours FREE as WND's gift for subscribing to Whistleblower!)


PLEASE NOTE: When your Whistleblower subscription is due to expire,
you will receive a renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower
coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically for
the special low price of only $39.95 by charging your credit or debit
card. There's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full
refund of the unused portion of your subscription.

If you prefer, you may order a single copy of the May 2014 issue, 

If you wish to order by phone, call our toll-free order line at
1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).



Call Toll-Free to Order:
If you prefer to order by phone, you can call our friendly, Midwestern
customer service reps
toll-free at 1-800-4WND-COM  (1-800-496-3266),
Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm Central.



If you are unable to see images in the message above,<>
click here.