Peter C Glover's ... WIRES from the UK

A lot of fuss has been made in the US about 'Thomas Beatie' aka Tracy Lagondin 'a man' having a baby. But its really only a story about a woman being pumped full of male hormones etc. and under the illusion she is now a man, whatever the legal status. So its not a story about 'a man having a baby it all'. Tragic - for the baby that is - the real victim of this appalling social charade. 

Friends, get used to it. If you want Liberalism as the prevailing humanistic religion then this is how its gonna work itself out in practice through social engineering. Here's a taster from the BBC piece on 'her': "Mr Beatie grew up in Hawaii as Tracy Lagondin and was a Girl Scout, model and finalist in a teenage beauty pageant." Let's face it, she won't be getting any merit badges from God. 

A baby pictured at 24 weeks. This is what the Labour Government (and most MPs) in Britain currently sanction can, legally, be murdered.If we needed to take the spiritual and moral temperature of our nation, its governance and Parliament we need look no further than the current votes on hybrid embryos (Monday), 'saviour siblings' (Monday), the role of fathers in IVF (Tuesday) and abortion limits (Tuesday). Yesterday, MPs voted by 342 to 163 to back the Brown Government's hybrid embryo research.

This obscene procedure will allow the nuclei of human cells to be inserted into animal eggs. And why not? According to the prevailing religion of Western Liberalism are not humans and animals simply variants of the same kind of creature? So what harm can there be when mutant ninja turtles become a reality? The only trouble is there is a vast difference between human kind and animals - as the Maker's instructions make abundantly plain.

Let's be perfectly clear. Not a single Western nation - and not many of them even pretend to remain morally informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic -  has given the go ahead to this appalling 'Nazi-Mengele-like' procedure. Even post-Christian nations have baulked at taking this momentous step. But not modern Britain. And this vote will no doubt have a direct affect on votes in other nations, such is Britain's 'proud' influence in the world today.  The 'fail safe position' is to be that no hybrid embryo will be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. (You want a bet that scientists won't let some to develop?) This is because even the Government fears the Franenstein monsters that will develop. Of course, this will also mean that the abortion rate will rise further.

'Saviour siblings' - the creation of brothers and sisters to service their sibling with genetic 'spare parts'.  Try telling someone they were only conceived for the purpose of bit part surgery to service the needs of their sibling. What legal status are they likely have in law, as they were born into a mere slave 'supportive role'? Whatever happened to "all men were created equal"? Not siblings created for spare part surgery, as we shall undoubtedly see.

Next up we have the role of fathers in IVF.  Now I have ethical problems from the off with some IVF treatments and the horribly drawn out failure process it usually introduce into people's lives. (And I know what I am talking about - my wife and I cannot have children.)  But, do children need a father is what this vote is all about. The liberal and PC answer is 'No'.  In the real world, however, we see everywhere the descent into social anarchy the lack of parental discipline, usually through the lack of a father-figure, is having. Any arrangement other than a joint male-female marital arrangement is, at best, second best. At worst it is a social and moral disaster and, most of all,  detrimental to the physical and spiritual well-being of the child.

Finally, lowering the abortion limit from 24 weeks. As I have asked in these pages before: Ever seen a 24-week old child in the womb (see pic above)? Is it not plainly a fully formed small human? Or can you kid yourself it has no huma life value?  Does that child have a right to live? Not in modern Britain, apparently.

Abortion literally requires us dismember that growing child to kill it. I have often thought that merely showint this procedure once on prime-time television - what actually happens - would lower the abortion rate overnight in our country. Odd, isn't it. Just because we are kept in the dark about what happens, we beleive we can claim igonrance about it. Remember the film 'Alfie' and the awful tears of the Michael Caine character when he felt impelled to see the results of his actions?  But we prefer the morality of: See No Evil, Hear No Evil instead.

When 'science' experts beleived (faith again) we could feed animals to other animals we got a severe shock: BSE. But that shock will be nothing compared to what lies in store as these nazi-style medical fishing expeditions receive the cotes to go ahead. Yesterday, it seems, our 'civilised society' took a serious step towards a new dark age.

But let's not beleive for one moment that its perpetrators do not have their own gods. Let's not make that mistake. 'Science' and 'medical research without moral boundaries' have become two.  Self-interest is another - its calculated to win them votes.  They all worship in the modern Church of (Anything Goes) Liberalism - and while we are all looking outward at the threat from radical Islam et al, Human Liberaliam is corrdoing our (formerly Judeo-Christian-rooted) Western 'civilised' soul.

 The BBC likes its morally vacuous 'Thought for the Day segments, so here's one for our nation today:

"Shall the throne of inequity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with you"? Psalm 94:20 

And where, you might wonder, is the bewhiskered moral guidance of the Anglican Church's Chief Druid (Rowan 'Atkinson' Williams) in all this. Where indeed?   

Well, the Godless bunch of immoral reprobates at the British Medical Association have brought further shame on the medical profession once again this week by voting to make early abortion even easier. However, they are, after all, only upholding the new moral 'consensus' (and a consensus is always right, right?) of the Hypocritical (sic) Oath, it should be said.

Under British law it will now be possible for a (possibly very confused and depressed) mother to convince just one amoral doctor to join the ranks of the immoral BMA consensus and perform ritual dismemberment - which is how it is done.

If you are a Brit, don't you just love living in a civilised country?? 

Abortionists believe this 24-week-old is NOT a baby. Hard to believe isn't it? Still, thinking and logic was never their strong suit. "6.7 million abortions have been performed by doctors in Britain since the implementation of the 1967 Abortion Act and 2006 figures just published show a further rise in the annual number of abortions."

 
An online petition has recently been posted calling on the British Medical Association at its annual meeting this coming Wednesday to reject the recommendations of its Medical Ethics Committee, which is calling for abortion on demand in the first trimester. The petition also calls for the BMA to conduct a properly evidence-based review that involves full consultation with its members and all frontline doctors.

I have already signed it as have some blogging friends. If you would like to sign the online petition (and ask others to do the same) go here.

Abortionists get upset whenever anyone else, especially men, take an anti-abortion view. "What right do you have to have a say over how any woman should have control of her own body!" is their dumb reasoning.  "The same way I would intercede if that same woman pulled out a gun and tried to shoot her children in the head," I answer. (Of course, shooting them would be MUCH more humane than the dismembering while still alive that takes place during abortion.)

And that's before having real consideration for the very real damage a woman is doing to her own body and future psyche (knowing and feeling the guilt over what she did). Abortions don't just involve the woman, by the way. They involve the father as well as other people that have to help her pick up the emotional pieces - oh yes, and the complicity of countless medical staff - something, in the UK at least, for which ALL of us financially support!

Hat tip: My good friend Mike Iliff over at Turkey Farm Tales. 

Cameron: The 'Baby-faced Assassin' of core conservative policies (anyone got a spliff?)Remember when Manchester United used to call their striker Ole Gunnar Solskaer the 'Baby-faced assassin'? Well I rather think David Cameron has assumed the same 'striking' role for the New Conservative Party. His chief target being historic, core conservative policies - the policies that actually make the party conservative.

First of all, Cameron takes a central plank of policy - the pursuit of individual excellence in education (something he himself benefited from) - then suggests that the Party turns its back on the promotion of Grammar Schools, the UK's leading educational element that aids that pursuit. When the grassroots of the party recognise this for what it is, a complete reversal not just of policy but of principles and values, he goes on the offensive by proclaiming the battle over the issue will be a "key test".

Of what, you might ask? Of "whether the party wants to be seen as a part of government" or "a right-wing debating society". Notice the non-too subtle circumvention of any debate on the real issue? He does this a lot. He changes policy to suit himself and what he believes to be a vote-winning move (which, I think, it will not) -  then avoids justifying the change by shifting the debate to focus on his understanding of what it means to 'modernise' of the party. Where Cameron is concerned: for 'modernisation' read 'liberalisation'.

Conservatives beware. Cameron is pursuing the same same strategy of liberalisation, via the the emasculation of core doctrine, that brought the Church of England to its knees (in abject intellectual poverty, not faithfulness). You remember the C of E, don''t you? Bearded? Wears a frock? Hangs out down Lambeth way, in posh palaces? Irrelevant? An organization that used to worship to the God that created it? Now it just worships liberal values and itself. Rowan and David have much in common.

I have always had a great deal of time for the country of New Zealand. It has always struck me as a beautiful and 'sensible' place to live.

While avoiding buying French apples at the supermarket I always head for NZ produce (as I work from home I do the shopping!) and wines (for medicinal purposes only). Sadly, however, the NZ government been struck down with SED (Social Engineer Disease - a sub-symptom of Liberalism to which intrusive government is prone) and has just brought in a "disputed" ban of smacking by parents in the home.

And there is no doubt that the pressure to conform to this anti-Christian (the Bible is extremely directive on the point of child discipline - and no the OT is not changed one iota by the NT on this point) and pro-anarchy inducing idiocy across the Anglosphere.

Anarchy has already broken out in our schools. Children know they can hit teachers without any real retribution. They no longer know where the lines our in school behaviour. Now governments, which have no higher right to interfere when it comes to how parents should bring up their children - unless they beat them to a pulp, want to become proxy parents too.

Liberal World, in its profound igorance of real life, is unable to discern the significantdifference between imposing normal child discipline and causing actual bodily harm. Neither, so it seems, is the NZ Government.

I fully realise that it is all hands to the pump at present to find this missing little girl, Maddy, in Portugal. And rightly so, though I have a bad feeling about the outcome. Let us hope (and my wife and I pray for her every morning), against the norm in these situations, that she has been taken by a woman (desperate for a child of her own) and not a paedophile.

But, is it just me, or is the unasked question this: Why did they leave the little girl alone and go off to have a meal at a local restaurant in the first place? I asked a female friend who has a similarly aged little girl this recently and she (a gentle soul) was emphatic that "You just don't do that, as difficult as it is to always be with them, you either take them with you or don't go out and stay with them." 

I wouldn't be making the point if it were not for the fact that the mass media simply doesn't stop its usual fawning by lauding and reiterating what "great parents" Maddy has. It seems to me they made a massive error of judgment here - but, I do pray, not a tragic one.  

One of the great marks of our age is the determination to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility and guilt (what the Bible calls 'sin' - but let's not upset peoples psyche by mentioning that too often as it implies there is a God to whom we are answerable for that sin). And nowhere is this propensity found more keenly than in the current attempt to blame our genes for our personal 'wrong-doings'. 

It seems the 'experts' believe (i.e. employ faith) they have discovered an obesity gene. So getting fat is not really anyone's 'fault' it is an inescapable fact of life for some people. Now here's a shock. But even if there was such a thing as a 'pre-programming obesity gene' it doesn't make a scrap of difference to the moral lifestyle choices some believe that implies.

Let us say, for instance, the 'experts' (who say butter is bad for you one day then good for you the next) believe that there is a paedophile gene. Would that 'fact' exempt the 'carrier' of it from moral and social norms? Would it mean treating him any differently after he raped or indecently assaulted a small child?  Predilection or not, there are some things you just cannot do - without moral, social and national consequences.

Here's another fact: 35% of all sicknesses are associated with obesity. Work out what that costs the nation - and each one of us who have to pay to treat these sicknesses brought on through 'immoral' over-eating. My wife is a director of finance in the NHS. She will tell you fat people (together with smokers) and their need for treatment is bleeding the NHS dry.

Blaming genes for our personal sins is no different to saying "The devil made me do it". It is always someone else's fault - never mine. And, just for the record, if bleeding heart liberal do-gooders don't like this opinion, they should understand this: it's not my fault, just put it down to a faulty opinion gene.

Faye Turney-coat, having collaborated with the enemy now sells her soul to the media.I  have followed the British sailors issue with some interest while I was away for a few days and then over Easter - and I find myself completely disgusted with the lauding of them as heroes and the granting of the right to publish their 'memoirs'. I share something of the American General's view that a court-martial - given their traitorous actions - might be more appropriate. (I would not have shaken hands with Ahmadinejad on release - and didn't 14 sailors miss a glorious opportunity to 'deck' him?)

Just imagine anyone of us being granted the right to 'go public' on an issue directly affecting are current employers? We'd rightly be sacked overnight (much as the idiot MOD minister who acceded to the request to allow private publishing deals should be).

Then there is the incident itself. I find myself sharing the annoyance of Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens that this incident should have happened at all - at least without the Royal Navy being prepared for it, after military personnel were similarly abducted by the Iranian crackpot Revolutionary Guards last year. 

Neither did these soldiers distinguish themselves after being taken into custody. (And what hat on earth was mother of two -  and not a very bright one at that - doing there in the first place? I share Mr Ahmadinejad's bemusement at this point?)  Here's today's BBC report: 

'Leading Seaman Faye Turney has told how she "felt like a traitor" when she was forced to write "confession" letters shown on Iranian television.'

Well that's probably because here 'feeling' was entirely justified by the facts. She said on radio this morning that she did it because she was afraid of "being charged with an offence". Note that, not 'shot' but 'charged'.  

I said on this blog when the incident first began that the Iranians would have no choice but to release these sailors. It was all a game to them. But they'd have faced massive retribution if they had not. It was simply a question of time. It seems that none of them had been trained well enough to think it through - let alone be brave in their predicament. Easy to say? Perhaps? But anyone with spunk will know that grovelling to bullies gains nothing - and an ignominious freedom tainted by the public and personal knowledge of traitorous collaboration lives long in the memory.

My guess is that these tell-all remembrances for cash will do little to assuage their inherent sense of guilt in the long run. Iran 1 Royal Navy 0.    

The news that Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer was murdered is truly appalling - though the fall-out back home whenever the nation team are defeated has always  been over the top and vicious (usually against the team). His forthcoming memoirs and 'outing' of cricket's dark side (especially match-fixing) have been cited as possible explanations for the violence.

But I would not be at all surprised if the vicious attack does not turn out to be 'closer to home' and to something more personal among those in the team's entourage. These things often turn out to be more about personal anger and evil than international conspiracies.

NB. One other thing. I find it extremely difficult to see how his death can be blamed on...global warming. But it is surely just a question of time before some environmentalist nut job makes the link. After all, Pakistan do play in green. Interesting, eh...?

Wanted Dead: by the animal activist nutjobsThe whole life-hating worldview of the in-human flotsam that makes up much of the Animal Activist and environMENTAL movement is fully revealed in this story of the young polar bear Knut in Germany.  Here's a piece from this week's Spiegel:

Animal rights activists, as SPIEGEL reported Monday, aren't so enthralled with the polar bear baby. They are concerned that Knut, who is being raised by human hand after his mother rejected him, is in danger of losing touch with the bear necessities. Some would like to see him dead.

"Raising him by hand is not appropriate to the species but rather a blatant violation of animal welfare laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht told the mass circulation newspaper Bild, whose front page headline Monday read "Will Sweet Knut Be Killed by Injection?"

Berlin Zoo is allowing Knut to be raised in such a way that the bear will have a behavioral disorder for the rest of his life, Albrecht believes. "In actual fact, the zoo needs to kill the bear cub," he adds.

No Frank, like most braindead liberals, you have it backwards. Its not the little polar bear - long may he live and give himself and others pleasure by his life - that would benefit (the rest of us in the real world) from a lethal injection.. if you think Knut might have bevavioural difficulties Frank, what's your excuse?  (And I never mentioned the war once!...Oh rats...) 

UN investigators have condemned the Sudan's Islamic government over Darfur in a new report. The UN is NOT actually going to DO anything about the Sudanese genocide in Darfur you understand. But accusing the murderous Sudanese regime 'of "orchestrating and participating" in crimes in Darfur that include murder, mass rape, and kidnap' does make the UN personnel feel morally superior.

It also helps them to maintain the fiction that they are doing a 'jolly good job' and, as they put their feet up in the comfort of their homes, that they are doing "all they can" to help the people of Darfur.

 The team leader of the investigators who wrote the report described the international community's response thus far as "pathetic". As the world and his brother insist that it is the UN alone which has the 'moral authority' to act in situations like Darfur one can only assume that he means the UN's response has been "pathetic".

I can run with that.

I don't always regard William Rees-Mogg as a fount of all wisdom on matters moral. However, his piece in this weekend's The Times warrants reading because, essentially, he has hit on a key social issue for us all: the role of religion in all society.

In "Religion isn't the sickness. Its the cure." Rees-Mogg focuses on the abject failure of modernism and makes the case for religion being the answer to societal woes and not the cause of them, as some "neurotic" moderns believe. What he should have said is that the Judeo-Christian religion specifically, underpinning as it does, the entire Western civilized 'proposition' (i.e. the West's values), is the only answer to the array of religious or religious-style belief systems currently eating away at the moral foundations of our legal, educational and social systems. 

And he astutely makes mincement of Michael Portillo's assertion that: "men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics", by alluding to the work of William Wilberforce as the key mover in the abolition of slavery. The truth is that Wilberforce was indeed 'driven' by 'unseen forces'. If feel an Open Letter coming on...

Dear Mr Portillo...do watch out for the new film on the life of William Wilberforce Amazing Grace which , as this Sunday Telegraph article reveals is currently taking the US by storm. You might just learn something about the 'driving of unseen forces' in your own life.

There are many kinds of 'religious' slavery, so it seems, Mr Portillo. Slavery to privatized morality, failed modernism and global environMENTALism to name but three.

Al Gore's Oscar success last night will no doubt propel him towards a Nobel Peace Prize and a possible run for the 2008 presidency. Gore's documentary beat out Deliver Us From Evil which, sadly, turned out not to be an expose of Gore's propagandist film (which even the latest IPCC report makes a nonsense of from the science perspective). For more go over to Global Warming Hysteria.com

At the same time as Britain announces a forthcoming pull-out of some of its troops from Iraq it is forced to send as further 1,000 troops back onto the frontline of where all the real fighting is in Afghanistan - because France and Germany won't. We should remember that the invasion of Afghanistan to dislodge a Taliban regime that sponsored the 9/11 attacks (and more) was opposed by very few. And that includes most of the EU countries who sent some of their troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO force.

As the UK, along with the USA of course, is the only nation that maintains a real professional army (and is consequently worth a light in real battle) it drew the short straw and got Helmand Province when the US withdrew. British commanders have long complained about not having enough troops to do the job - hence the new deployment of another 1,000. But the reason is a compelling one. The French and Germans keep their troops in the north of Afghanistan where it is comparatively quiet - and stubbornly refuse to send their troops south and east (where the Americans are) into battle zones.  This is the difference between those nations which have spine and courage and those who, politically speaking, don't. 

Amazingly, a good many Brits STILL think we are better off joining hands across the English channel with the political invertebrates of the EU rather than across the Atlantic with an American nation that so often is prepared to shed its blood with us in the world's hotspots and in the right cause (inlcuding Iraq, by the way). Whatever we may think of our American cousins, they have spine and walk upright. I find this a much more suitable stature for seeing more clearly than crawling around in the slime Franco-German-like hoping to evolve one day, don't you? At least at present, I believe the Americans could say the same of this nation. Though for how much longer, I wonder?