Winston Churchill on Islam!

8 Sep

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist.

HERE IS THE SPEECH: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualist deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome …”

Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Advertisements

Should we respect Islam?

31 Aug

Anyone following my writings will know my thoughts on Islam. Then I was told about Pat Condell. Wow!

For some time I have been thinking that the majority of peace loving Muslims are deluded and living in a fantasy that their religion is the Religion of Peace. No it’s not.

Pat Condell says it better.

http://www.patcondell.net/its-good-to-be-anti-islam/

1400 abused girls

28 Aug

The police have time to research posthumously the sexual crimes of Jimmy Saville, imprison Rolf Harris and prosecute Dave Lee Travis. Yet 1400 young girls, children, are systematically abused and raped over a 10 year period in Rotherham and despite being told about it again and again, the authorities, police and social services do nothing. Nobody arrested, no one in jail! Scandalous.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/share/uuid/4076e366-2dff-11e4-a4ef-b948fb862936

And why? The perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani origin and the police were scared of being called racists or Islamophobes. They did not want to upset “social cohesion”.

But the real question, and the one no-one seems to ask,  is why the police are so scared. Why does this group get special privileges?

It is because  Muslims totally overreact to every perceived slight and we let them get away with it.  They threaten death, riots and suicide bombers.  They are like petulant children, only they are not children and the threats have proven to be real.  So, unbelievably, the police back off.

Far better to let 1400 young girls suffer both sexual and physical abuse.

 

crybabyrespectcross

It’s happening in our country

10 Aug

The Muslim moderates are irrelevant. It’s the hard liners who call the shots.

The moderates will toe the line because they are scared of their more extreme brethren.

In Phase 2 of the jihad, Muslims have sufficient numbers to demand special treatment and here they are, trying to ban street dancing in Birmingham.

10th August 2014 in The Sunday Times
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/share/uuid/f6a9a0d8-1f9f-11e4-b58a-ab8eb719b82f

Islamists ‘order mass FGM for Iraqi women’

25 Jul

The Times Hugh Tomlinson July 25 2014

Islamist militants have ordered all women and girls in the Iraqi city of Mosul to undergo female genital mutilation as they impose their brutal interpretation of Sharia, the United Nations said yesterday.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the al-Qaeda splinter group Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis), was said to have issued a fatwa as “a gift to the people” ordering all females aged 11 to 46 to submit to forced circumcision.

Is this report true or is it propaganda?
Time will tell.

The thing is we have such a low opinion of these groups that we are happy to believe it is true.

How does a self proclaimed peaceful religion get such a bad reputation? By showing us again and again that whatever their words, the actions are violent.

I am sure the majority of Muslims are peaceful.  But they don’t really count.  There is a significant proportion who are not peaceful and it seems to me that the so-called peaceful ones collude with the violent ones.  How?  They don’t denounce them; speak out against them.  Why not?  Either they have sympathies or they are too afraid.  Members of  this peaceful religion live in fear!

That peaceful.

Tolerance

17 Jul

I was recently sent this anecdote.  It’s wicked but it resonates.

Jiggs McDonald, NHL Hall of Fame broadcaster, was speaking in Ontario and said,

“I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in Toronto. I think it should be the goal of every Canadian to be tolerant regardless of their religious beliefs. Thus, the mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

“That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, ‘The Turban Cowboy,’ and the other a topless bar called ‘You Mecca Me Hot.’ Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbecue pork restaurant, called “Iraq of Ribs.”

“Across the street there could be a lingerie store called: “Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret,” with sexy mannequins in the window modelling the goods. Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, “Koranal Knowledge,” its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called “Morehammered.”

“All of this would encourage Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so their mosque issue would not be a problem for others.” Yes, we should promote tolerance, and you can do your part by passing this on. And, if you are not laughing or smiling at this point, it is either past your bedtime, or it’s midnight at the oasis and time to put your camel to bed.”

Freezing Energy Prices

14 Jul

At the 2013 Labour Party conference, the flagship policy announcement by Ed Miliband was a 20 month freeze on energy prices.

Since then, we have had energy share price crashes, threats of blackouts and early price rises, energy companies saying it will destroy much needed investment in new capacity and so on.  There has been talk of Red Ed – Labour returning to it’s bad old ways.

All of these points need review but they all miss the real point.

We are up to our ears in debt, state handouts are completely out of control, we desperately need to encourage industry, unemployment is far too high especially for the young, we are under threat from terrorists, the NHS is struggling, the EU is a pain in the neck, immigration is at disaster levels, the Human Rights Act is in complete disrepute.

And what is the very best that Ed Miliband can come up with?

Freeze energy bills!

God preserve us from this man as our Prime Minister.

 

The majority of Muslims are peaceful

10 Jul

I am sure they are. But check this out.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

 

We will out-breed you

6 Jul

In 1980, we employed a decorator to paint our house.

He told us that there was a local shop owned by a friendly Muslim.

One day, the Muslim said to him, “You must understand that we are at war with you and we will be at war until Britain is an Islamic state. And we will win this war without any fighting for one simple reason. We will out-breed you.”

That was 34 years ago. Look at the statistics.

In this article below from The Times it points out that 1 in 10 of the babies under 5 years old in the UK is Muslim. 1 in 10!
Also the number of Muslims in the UK grew from 1.6 million to 2.7 million in just 10 years, from 2001 to 2011!

The name ‘Oliver’ is no longer the most popular name given to new born baby boys in the UK.  The most popular name is Mohummad!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/share/uuid/2f6280b6-0772-11e4-8f74-07cda6514f76

In the same article, the main thrust is that the poor old mosques are too overwhelmed by other work to spend enough time stopping imams from radicalising their youth. Taqiyya or what! (See previous post). Oh, that’s all right then.

On the evening news on BBC1 on 14th July 2014, when discussing police demographics in London, it was stated without comment that 40% of Londoners are Black or Asian! 40% of our capital city!

 

See also: https://thoughtsforourtimes.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/islam-conquers-the-uk/

 

 image

Muslims Lie To Us

5 Jul

They tell they are a religion of peace. That’s a lie. The Quran says there should be peace between Muslims. (But that is clearly not true.  They kill each other all over the place.) It also says that there is a Jihad, a holy war, until everyone in the world is a Muslim, either by persuasion or by force.  Whatever they say, their holy book, which is followed without question tells them they are at war with us, the infidel. We tend to ignore this inescapable fact.  Whatever they say, they are at war with us. Don’t be ridiculous, I hear you say. Now I come to the really scary bit – the Muslim principle of “Taqiyya”.

I  have no idea why we infidels are not told about it because it is much discussed and used by Muslims. Taqiyya says that it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to lie and dissimulate to the infidel in the pursuance of Islam. So, for example, even at governmental levels, they might sign a treaty but it might be a dissimulation.  They will have no compunction to abide by it until something better comes along or they are strong enough to break it.

Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

A Loving Religion

24 Jun

I am told that the vast majority of the people from one religion are good people and loving people.  I am sure they are.

Yet the items in the list below have all been done in the name of  that  religion and a great god.  Do we want the worry of having people with these thoughts mass migrating to our country?  And demanding that their legal system can sit side by side with ours?

We, of course,  must accept these little aberrations otherwise we are racist or committing the crime of religious intolerance.  And that can land us in jail. They are welcome in our country in great numbers.

  • Bombing buildings killing thousands
  • Hijacking aeroplanes
  • Kidnapping over 200 schoolgirls for going to school
  • Young men are seduced off to a sectarian war in another country then some of them come back threatening this country
  • Female genital mutilation
  • Beheading as a punishment in public
  • Stoning to death. the men buried to their waist so they might escape, women to their shoulders so they can’t
  • Death penalty for changing religion
  • Amputation as a punishment, arms and legs
  • Forced marriages
  • Underage marriages
  • “Honour” killing of female relatives for going out with someone from a different religion or sect
  • Grooming of white girls for sex then selling them for prostitution
  • Punishing someone by gang raping his sister, who then has to commit suicide because she has bought dishonour to the family
  • Death penalty after accusing raped women of adultery
  • Anti music and dance
  • Death penalty for minor insult to the leader
  • Assassination of journalists and soldiers in the street
  • Open hatred of my (western) values
  • Insisting that women cover themselves in public
  • Segregating boys and girls at school
  • Beating children who do not learn the holy book well enough

 

Labour vs Conservative Pre-occupations.

14 Jul

It seems to me that Labour’s pre-occupation is on how the cake should be divided, no matter how small the cake and even if it’s shrinking.
At least the Conservatives make some attempts, however cack-handed, to cook a bigger cake.

Government borrowing is theft

26 May

Government borrowing is theft. It’s theft from our children. It’s a cynical plundering of the future.

Let’s imagine a business that can earn a 10% return on money it invests. It makes sense to borrow at 3% to invest more, getting a net 7%. It makes good sense.

But Governments don’t borrow for investment opportunities. They don’t get a return. They borrow because they run out of cash. They have promised too much in State handouts and purchases.

So they borrow. Future taxpayers can pay the bill!
In fact, they borrow so much that the future taxpayers are now our children!
They have borrowed so much that the interest payments almost match the tax receipts! The borrowings can be reduced but only by increasing taxes.
That’s not good for winning elections. So they borrow more instead.

The government is not reducing borrowing. It is just reducing the rate at which they are borrowing more!
They are merely reducing the rate at which they steal from our children!
They love spending other people’s money.

What can be done? Increasing tax is difficult when the country is on it’s knees – recession, unemployment.

In the steady state, Governments should live within their tax receipts.
To get there, reducing government outgoings is the only way – however hard it is.

Gordon Brown used to call his spending “Government Investment”. It was a cynical misuse of words to cover up his grand larceny on the future.

Anjem Choudray

23 May

Anjem Choudray, a well known Muslim cleric, takes home more than £25,000 a year in benefits, according to the newspapers. He calls it ‘Jihadseeker’s allowance’.  (How I hate the word ‘benefits’.  It means State handouts)

Listen to what he says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2KVw

And we support this fanatic financially. We are utterly mad.

What happened to the Laws of Sedition?  They were abolished in 2009!  Yes, we are mad.

I don’t care that Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc don’t pay tax in the UK.

23 May

So the big multinationals organise themselves so that they pay little tax in the UK !

We should get over it.

If we are to be in the EU, or sign GATT treaties, then this type of arrangement is what we signed up for.

If we want multi-nationals to pay tax here then we should reduce corporation taxes to competitive levels. That’s how it works. No point whinging.

Or leave the EU.

Anyway, as blogged earlier, big companies don’t pay tax. They pass their taxes on in higher prices. Only consumers pay tax. So as a consumer, I can’t get excited at this furore. I get caught one way other the other. Either I pay income tax or I pay the multinational’s tax bill through their higher prices.

Governments like corporation taxes because their tax collection is hidden from the consumer in the price of goods and services.  And then they have the gall to charge VAT on these hidden taxes!

Mass Immigration

30 Mar

If “Racism” is the hatred of other races, then let’s define “Waterism” as the hatred of water.

I like a glass of water.  I like rain.  I like the ebb and flow of the tides.  I like lakes.  I am not waterist.

But for all that I hate tsunamis.  So am I a waterist or merely a “tsunami-ist”?

Yet people who complain against mass immigration are labelled Racists.  No they’re not.

It’s not hard

Lib Dem Disenfranchisement Scandal

29 Mar

The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes proposed by the Boundaries Commission.  They did so because they did not get their way with Lords Reform.  That sounds fair enough.

Actually, it’s scandalous behaviour.

The Lib Dems who claim to be so democratic and “for the people” have decided that some people’s votes must count less than other people’s.  They have voted to block the changes that would make the constuency sizes more equitable.  How democratic is that?

They will argue that the current system for the House of Lords is undemocratic.  Maybe it is.  But two wrongs don’t make a right  and the Lib Dem wrong is by far the bigger one.  It is the House of Commons that runs the country.  The House of Lords has far less influence.

The Conservative Party lose up to 20 seats because of this blockage!  The main beneficiaries from the block are the Lib Dems and Labour, surprise surprise.  But, of course, that had nothing to do with their actions, did it?

I used to have some respect for the Lib Dems.  But this behaviour is just cynical manoevering covered in a veneer of self righteousness.

Mansion Tax

26 Mar

The Liberal Democrats go on and on about the Mansion Tax.

But there are already two Mansion Taxes.

Houses over £2million attract 7% or even 15% in Stamp Duty when they are sold.  That means £140,000 or £ 280,000 on the property.

A house between £125,000 and £250,000 attracts just 1%! That’s just £2500 on a £1/2million house.

That looks like the first tax.

Then, of course, there is the Council Tax.

In my area a Band A house pays £900 pa whereas a Band H house pays £2700 pa. Band H is for houses over £320,000. This tax extends down a long way.

There the second tax.

The Lib Dem tax is just a mean minded attack on a soft touch.

Immigration into the UK under Labour

24 Mar

Why is this story not more widely publicised? It’s scandalous.

In 2003 the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, stated during a BBC TV interview that he could see “no obvious limit” to immigration into the UK. When asked if there was a maximum population that could be housed within the UK, he replied: “no, I don’t think so” – adding that he believed the net immigration rate (then running at approximately 170,000 per year) was “permanently sustainable”.11

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed. 

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. 

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. 

Blunkett: No limit on migration
 
Legal migrants bring valuable skills, says Blunkett
There is “no obvious limit” to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK, the home secretary has said.
David Blunkett agreed some people felt swamped by new arrivals, but said legal migrants brought economic benefits.

He said Britain had always been “crowded”, and the current net inflow of 172,000 a year was sustainable.

Campaign group Migration Watch attacked his comments, saying this rate plus illegal entries meant two million more people by 2013.

This would have a “huge impact” on the country, it said.

The latest official migration estimates, published hours after Mr Blunkett’s comments, suggest the inflow – the difference between the numbers leaving the UK and those arriving – fell slightly to 153,000 in 2002.

 It is a crowded island – we’ve always been a crowded, vigorous island  
David Blunkett

Could migration boost economy?
Farms ‘rely on migrant workers’
Speaking on BBC Two’s Newsnight, Mr Blunkett said he was determined to cut the numbers of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants entering the UK.

But he wanted more skilled workers to come to Britain legally to plug staff shortages – especially in the catering, hospitality and construction industries.

Asked whether there was any limit on the number of skilled migrants who could arrive, Mr Blunkett said: “No, I see no obvious limit.

“I see a balance in terms of the different forms of entry, migration and residency in this country so that we can get it right.”

He said he did not believe there was a maximum population which could be housed in the country, saying: “I don’t think there is.”

‘Astonishing’

Current migration rates were “permanently sustainable” as long as illegal immigration was under control, he added.

Economic migrants contributed £2.5bn more in taxes than they took out in benefits, he said.

“If we can get it in balance and make sure that there is a net increase in terms of our GDP, we are onto a winner,” he said.

He added: “It is a crowded island. We’ve always been a crowded, vigorous island.”

Problem

Sir Andrew Green, of Migration Watch, said he was “astonished” by Mr Blunkett’s comments.

 There is widespread concern that the government have expanded the scope of legal migration as a way to cover up their failure to tackle widespread abuse of the asylum system  
David Davis,
Shadow home secretary

A change of policy?
“We have no problem with moderate and managed migration. The problem is that it is neither moderate nor managed,” he said.

The official Home Office figures, plus illegal immigration, meant at least two million people would be entering the UK over the next 10 years, he said.

“England is nearly twice as crowded as Germany, four times as crowded as France, 12 times as crowded as the US. I can’t think what they are doing.”

Shadow home secretary David Davis suggested the government was encouraging legal migration “as a way to cover up their failure to tackle widespread abuse of the asylum system”.

He said changes to immigration policy should take place only after a debate about the economic, social and environmental consequences.

But Keith Best of the Immigration Advisory Service praised the Home Secretary, saying he believed the comments would ultimately “flush out” those using misleading statistics to oppose migration.

“It’s a pity that David Blunkett did not say this earlier,” said Mr Best.

“It is business which wants the workers and the govenrmen’s job is to facilitate this.

But the biggest commitment Mr Blunkett needs to make is to improve the statistics so we can have a rational debate.”

No Representation without Taxation!

13 Jul

A quick visit to our local DSS shows a stream of manifestly unemployable people. Their attitude, haircuts and dirty unkempt clothing would make any employer run a mile. They have just collected their “Benefits”. ( What a dreadful distortion of that word.  It should simply  be called “State Support”).

A huge percentage of people come of the DSS and immediately light up a cigarette. My hard earned taxes are being used to support these leeches and much of it then literally goes up in smoke.

It makes me very cross.

Of course we need some safety net for the unfortunates who lose their job.  But clearly many of these people are manipulating the system. They have no intention of getting work.

Unemployment “Benefit” is given to those who can show that they apply for jobs. That’s all. They are not obliged to present themselves properly so that they are interviewed or indeed succeed in the interview.

It screams out that the feckless can abuse the system.  And all the evidence is that many people do.

But, of course, many people on State Support are not feckless and it is hard to differentiate between the feckless and the unfortunate.  It would be to arbitrary to make judgments to take away their “Benefits”.

Yet, when it comes to an election, the feckless then have the right to vote for the party that promises to perpetuate this scandal!

Now that  is one change I would certainly like.

Those on “Benefits” don’t pay taxes so why should they have the right to decide how the taxes are spent?  It is not a punishment but a statement of fact.  And it could apply to the feckless and the unfortunate alike.

If someone is long term purely dependent on the State they should not have the right to decide who runs the State.

No Representation without Taxation!

(Well, no vote without taxation.)