US voters still spotting 'Godless' Democrat policies

A new Pew Research Center poll in America has revealed that only 26% of Americans perceive the Democrat Party (liberals , though more 'conservative' than UK liberals, of course) as friendly towards religious faith. This will have come as a shock to a party the US electorate clearly found to be amoral in many of its policies at the 2004 election - and which has been trying hard to 'find God' ever since.  Plainly, the US electorate (being - to a degree - brighter, more politically aware and distincntly more Christian than its UK counterpart) sees straight through liberal policies as pursuing the antithesis of God's 'policies' or teachings.  

Plainly, when it comes to the 'party of God', US voters still do not see the Democrats as moral. If only UK voters were as astute about liberal policies in the UK. But what voters on both sides of the Atlantic have yet to fully grasp is that liberals, far from eschewing 'faith' at all - have simply traded their nation's Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage for a mess of  Secular Liberal pottag - one belief system for another.

Democrat strategists after the 2004 election drubbing have done their level best to reveal themselves as having 'found God' as Slates' Amy Kellogg here notes. Sadly, however, God still seems disinclined to allow his followers to be diverted by Democrat strategy seeking to obscure Democrat policy.

So what should real conservatives do?

The question keeps arising: in the light of a Cameron Conservative Party which has tacked to the left of the Liberal Party what should real conservatives do at the next election?  The answer is not an easy one - at least for those of us who believe in the importance of free voting in a democratic society. But then that is the real point here. Do we real have any longer a true democratic society?

 None of us voted for an un-elected (buy us) of a European elite to take decisions for our sovereign nation. And neither do we have true representation of the will of the people in the UK.  Just set the opinion polls (on Europe and the death penalty) against the polices of the three major parties.

In those circumstances we have two real options open to us. 1. A protest vote for a minor party that DOES reflect some our key policy conerns (I have voted UKIP for this very reason in the past - though there's is not an wholistic concervative ideology in truth). 2. Don't vote at all.  I fully appreciate that the latter denies the whole basis of the importance of voting in a free society. But the problem is that the conservative position and its adherent range of policies is nowhere represented by the three major parties - which are all variant scoialist liberal parties.

All we can do is vote or not with our consicence.  This may be the first election where most real conservatives (who should not be suckered by the misty-eyed 'let's all pull together for the sake of the party' nonsense - as the aprty has clearly 'lost its mind') have to vote with thrie feet, not with their hands.  No representation of our views means, quite simply, we have no democracy worthy of the name. So much for the liberal myth of  'real choice'.  The reality at present is: you can have any colour of creed - so long as its  liberal.  We might need to send the parties a message this election: we don't care for any of your choices.

The ONLY message to send terrorists

 

Stem cell 'wonder cure' claims slammed

At last some common sense in the rush for stem cell 'wonder cures'. 14 medical charities have written to The Times to warn that the claims for them are entirely overblown and, worse, untested and potentially very dangerous.

 Ann Coulter on stem cell research generally: "Although there has been research on both adult and embryonic stem cells since the fifties, only adult stem-cell research (ed: morally ethical) has prodcued any cures- and lots of 'em. Adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty diseases...By contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have prodcued nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully tereated a few rodents, but they keep running itno two problems: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas - meaning 'monster tumours'."

Scientist Michael Fumento says, "it was the very success of asdult stem-cell research compared with the abject failure of embryonic stem-cell research that led to the all-out PR campaign: 'Savvy venture capitalists have poured their money into ASC's, leaving the ESC reseatrchers desperate to feed at the federal trough'. "

Do you see why embryonic stem cell researchers - against all the failures of clarity of the real science - are desperate for public funding  to keep them employed in useless embryonic stem cell research? They know only too well that private funding won't be forthcoming for something private venture capitalists KNOW can't work.  So why whould the public purse pick up the tab for something real scientists and private science funders know is a loser?

Labour out at next election? As Cameron saves the planet?

I am natural conservative - as avers to a Cameron Conservative (conservatives: those with a a strong idoeological worldview/ Cameron Conservatives: those with no discernible cerebral functioning) so it pains me greatly that David Cameron may well win the next election.

The problem is it will be no less painful to imagine the Centraliser General Gordon Brown - a man who has put 500,000 more people on to the nation's dependency culture - walking through the doors of No 10 in 2009/2010. The former (leftwing) New Statesman editor  Peter Wilby, writing in The Guardian, has certainly given up the New Labour-again 'ghost' in favour of a Cameron victory.  A Liberal Democrat coup is certainly possible - and about as likely as Pluto regaining planet status.

The old joke, during Neil Kinnock's Labour years, suggesting, should he win, "Would the last person leaving Britain please turn off the light" is staring us all in the face no matter who wins. The prognosis does not look good for Britain in the second decade of this century. But then our stomach for standing for an increasingly un-democratic system which has degenerated into a politically-correct quagmire of nitwits scrabbling for the 'centre-ground' is all there is will come back and bite us all. What we need is real democracy again. A party which wants to take the UK out of the social welfare sinking EU. A party which believes in law and order - and the death penalty (which most Brits want restored, so whatever happened to representation of the people?). A party which acknowledges the need for ideology and a Judeo-Christian moral basis to our cultural values.

Such a party used to be called The Conservative Party. But that party is lately been co-opted into the Green Party and run by the Green Cross Code Man. Until it comes to its senses we face an inexorable rudderless, decline to pre-1980s standards (and perhaps worse). Only those of us who lived then can know exactly what that means.  

Hez: Regrets, I've had a few. But then again...

According to this Guardian front page piece this morning Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, says he would not have sanctioned the kidnapping of the two Israeli sodliers (though not sorry enough to give them up) had he known it would lead to war. (Apparently, he mis-heard Allah's instructions. Easily done.)

If that is true then it validates Israel's action entirely in pursuing Hezbollah into the Lebanese heartland. If it stops them taking other hostages - indeed all terrorists taking hostages - then it has served the war served a valuable purpose. What would now be a major mistake is for Israel to release ANY Muslim or Arab prisoners in a quid pro quo move - or they will lose the moral high ground they have up to this point maintained.

 Nasrallah apparently remains non-commital about a role as a Guardian columnist (if Mossad let him live make retirement).  I understand the working title: 'Jihadist and Liberal world perspective...'  Sounds about right.

What are awards for exactly?

Now it may just be that I have always held 'awards' of any kind in low regard because a) I have never won one (with a couple of minor school and sport caveats) and b) I am unlikely ever to win one in for my writing (too politically-incorrect and non-populist) .

 But neither can I see any real value in making awards - especially the 'back-slapping' variety - though I remain open to having my mind changed.  It is just that you can never ever be sure about the politics of those who judge and the criteria by which they do it.  I note that the US TV Emmy Awards are currently struggling for credibility. I have no problem with 24 winning best drama I might say (though I would have gone for Without A Trace at present).

Then there's the laughability of the Nobel Peace Prize and various media awards, including journalism awards (when journalists the mainstream journalism, as far as I can see, has something of a major crisis of truth problem. As the Trust in the Media poll in May proved.

Then there is the bizarre notion of the BBC and The Guardian with their Best of the Blogs  awards. Given that the best of the blogs - ie those that have and are forcing truth into the mainstream without liberal bias reflect the very antithesis of the values held by the the BBC and The Guardian, it is somewhat perverse.  And even the many other back-slapping awards including Tim Worstall's Best of British et al. Does he read them all? Answer: No. Do any of the award-givers  do so or even know what is out there?  I doubt it. So what useful purpose does it serve?  And how reflective is it actually of true  value?

Some of the 'best' blogs are in my view wholly lacking in an worldview coherence. I no longer even bother to read Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit. Not because his laconic quick-fire references are not useful - but they don't reflect any serious reflection quite often and thus (more importantly) a wholly unstructured personal worldview.  Then there's the Christian equivalent in the self-aggrandizing Warnie Awards by someone who perceives himself by the theological oxymoron of a 'Reformed charismatic' (a contradiction in theological terms to anyone that actually teaches the Scriptures from a Reformed position of course).

I suspect 'campaigns' (what people are prepared to stand up for publicly) say more about the worldview, principles and thus value of indidivuals who participate than do 'awards'. Thus my forthcoming 'Make France History' campaign should be the most popular in world history.  I might even receive an award for it. That would be useful, wouldn't it?

Is PC-ism the new official religion of Scotland?

It is not just the Catholic Church that should be "worried and alarmed" about Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc being cautioned for a Breach of the Peace when he performed the sign of the Cross during a 'old firm' game against Glasgow Rangers.

(For the record there is a history of sectarianism between the two Glasgow clubs  - Rangers 'heritage' being Protestant and Celtic's Catholic. The same thing used to be true about the two Manchester clubs. United , in the 50s being Catholic, and City being Protestant. Its all bunkem these days though. In the Glasgow case its now more about tribalism, not religion. Most of these football fans wouldn't know a Christian from a wet sponge - unfortunately, not helped by the fact that far too many liberal 'Christians' are indeed wet sponges. )

But this latest act of blatant PC-ism (political correctness) goes beyond the bounds of what ought to be acceptable to us all.  It appears the increasingly idiot Scottish Executive, which is also currently intent on foresting Scotland with propellor blades and wind farms, is keen to blow away all vestiges of common sense.   Will they prevent the Islamist Clans from shouting Allah Akhbar! in the streets, too? Will they stop Scots from consistently making sour remarks about 'Sassenachs' (that's us Anglo-Saxons in England) in their usual surly manner?

Presumably, all goalkeeper Artur Boruc really wants is to save things. After all that's the business he's in.   Now you see what an excess of haggis does to people's sensibilites?  

How we Brits miss Mark Steyn in our papers

Mark Steyn's much-lamented loss to British newspapers has been highlighted this week by journalist Stephen Pollard.  Pollard notes just how a BBC radio interview with an academic was highly revealing the lack of understanding and paucity of real debate in interviews reminds us we need more intellectual minds than the BBC can apparently muster. Pollard goes on to quote Steyn recently on the 'axis of evenhandedness' which betrays the liberal lack of understanding with what this war on terror is all about. Here is the whole article published in Canada's Western Standard - and here funny but telling opening quote:

"There's a hoary old joke from a few years back in which the Secretary-General proposes that, in the interests of global peace and harmony, the world's soccer players should come together and form one United Nations global soccer team.

"Great idea," says his deputy. "Er, but who would we play?"

"Israel, of course."

 Doesn't it just have the ring of truth though?

A disproportionate response

Western liberals complained long and hard about a 'disproportionate response' in Lebanon - and that's exactlytwhat they've got in the end. First the French influence and then draft the text of the UN mandate - then they offer a measly 200 troops on the basis that the "mandate isn't clear enough". Shamed by the world's reponse they have now upped their offer to make it a total of 2,000. This is less than the Italian offer which has always been 3,000 - and yet the French still want to lead the force.

Here then are the facts. A galvanized Israeli army strguggled to vanquish an army of well-armed terrorist guerillas.  The UN and Lebanese government conclude they need 15,000 troops to do the job. They now have just over 5,000.  They have no mandate to disarm the opposition other than by 'diplomatic effort'.  Now that's what I call a 'disproportionate response'.  Sit back. This should be good...

The myth of the climate expert debunked again.

If you ever wanted confirmation that there is no such thing as a climate expert just look at the evidence in the this summer. They now tell us the recent wet and cool weather in the UK is with us to stay and the heatwave we experienced is over for the year.

In the late winter they informed us we were headed for a "long hot summer".  Contrary to what people appear to currently believe we have not had a 'great' summer.  Decent, then hot weather finally arrived not in May or June but in July. July was indeed a hot month. Towards the end of July they told us "August will be even hotter".  Basically, it has not stopped raining or showering - and thus cooling - the countryside since.  Now they confirm what most of us already guessed: that the hot long hot summer, the even hotter August were gross mis-predicted climate events. 

And these are the same people advising David Cameron's environment-driven Tories and wanting us all to be taxed to 'stop climate change'? For an entirely more realistic perspective here is the excellent Dr Roy Spencer with some highly pertinent questions and assertions after viewing Al Gore's latest work of fiction, his film An Incovenient Truth.  And here's a second published yesterday by The American Thinker site entitled Climate of fear: from a nuclear winter to global warming.

New Syrian 'Hezbollah' preparing for war with Israel

You see this is what happens when you settle 'out of court' with terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas. It seems that so cockerhoop are the Syrians that what happened in Lebanon worked beter than diplomacy for Hezbollah and its 'backers' that Syria is setting up its own similar force whose aim will be to re-take the Golan Heights.

You do not treat terrorist groups like democratic nations - you confront them and smash them.  This is what happens.  Now we Israel/have more trouble in store.  And by the way, nobody seems to care much about the two Isaeli soldiers taken by Hezbollah and the one taken by Hamas. Not to mention the two Fox News staffers lifted by Hamas last week. NOTE: Fox News is a station that actually tells the truth about terrorism where the MSM does not. They would never think it worth taking a BBC editor or a Guardian correspondent. After all, these guys do their jobs for them.

Albion passes the 60million pop mark

So Britain has finally broken the 60million population mark. Well it would do if you allow just under one and a half million immigrants into the country in under two years. And the problem is we just don't know how many immigrants are actually coming in so those estimates wil be conservative. Though a large number of the Poles wil be Catholic in background quite a significant proportion of East Europeans will also be Muslim.

The ticking time-bomb of multiculturalism - a legacy of Britain's long dalliance with socialism -  is set to go off soon as we start concreting over the remainder of the greenbelt to accommodate them all (they clearly don't like their own countries very much).  Minister Ruth Kelly wants a "new and honest debate on diversity". No she doesn't. Oh she's sincere. But the last thing the government wants to hear about immigration and multiculturalism  is the truth.

Immigration: This is what it needs to hear:  1- We need to regain control of our borders. 2- The only way we can do it is to regain sovereignty from the EU. 3- We need to instigate a quota system giving priority to cases of hardship. 4- Repatriate many who are here illegally, and for those who stay...

Culture:  The prevailing (sometimes Government-funded) culture is British with its inherent Judeo-Christian-based values and morality.  Like it...or leave.

Bush accused of 'hoodwinking America' over Iraq

You can tell the push for the presidential nominations for 2008 is under way.  The latest sopabox oration has come from pseudo-Republican (so far as I can tell he's actually a Democrat with cerebral functioning) John McCain. He is taking Mr Bush to book over "hoodwinking America" into believing the war in Iraq would be "a day at the beach".  I may be wrong but didn't McCain support the invasion? And wouldn't that make him a 'hoodwinkee'? i.e. one who is susceptible to having the wool pulled over his eyes. Hardly a candidate for the world's top job then.

Showing at the Bora Bora Odeon

Reading a headline about Snakes on a Plane I thought it would be a piece about a leaders from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and the Afghani/Pakistani cave-dwellers heading for a pow-wow. But not so.  Apparently it's a new film that has just hit the top spot in the UK dislodging a cultural blockbuster about Pixar's Cars. With this kind of entertaining stuff topping the movie-goers hit parade you do tend to feel that the Islamofascists may just have a point about some Western culture.