I see that the Free Presbyterian Church has elected a successor to Ian Paisley, who has been Moderator of the FPC for almost 57 years. It’s a long time, isn’t it, for one man to hold such a post, but so it was with the remarkable Dr Paisley.
In essence, his own Church has thrown him out of high office and all the face-saving drivel churned out cannot disguise this simple fact. Paisley did not want to go – it was made clear to him that he had to go. However I am disappointed that he is allowed to remain a preacher in his church. Let me explain why.
I remember attending a service in my local FPC church. Dr Paisley was the guest speaker. He took Genesis 25 verses 31-34 as his topic. This concerns how the foolish Esau sold out his birthright to his brother Jacob in exchange for a paltry "mess of pottage" (A form of stew). The message was clear – we must all be careful not to sacrifice the important things in our loves for lesser desires. Get it?
Paisley could not preach that sermon tomorrow. He stands as First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly – gladly sharing power with the delegates of IRA terrorism in order to achieve this post. He has gone against the Bible teaching that he once pronounced so emphatically. And that is why he had to go – thankfully there are enough godly people in the FPC to remember that loyalty lies to the Bible, to Christ, not to earthly baubles.
I forecast this is just the beginning of endings for Paisley. And not before time.
In order to secure the French throne, Henry of Navarre renounced his Protestant faith and converted to Roman Catholicism in 1593 cynically adding that "Paris is worth a mass." He ascended to the French throne a year later in 1594.
Step forward in time to 2008. Tony Blair has recently renounced his Protestant faith and converted to Roman Catholicism. Is he triangulating to become the First President of Europe when this role comes into being in 2009? Is Brussels worth a mass?S
Writing in the Daily Telegraph. Charles Moore makes a very plausible case for the Blair presidency.
Initiated Under Blair, the British net contribution to the EU will rise from €2.8 billion to €5.5 billion by 2014. Blair complained that 40% of the European budget went on the Common Agricultural Policy. He then accepted this should INCREASE to 44%. Whatever could have made Blair so weak-willed when it came to defending British interests with the EU?
Under the thing we are not allowed to call the European Constitution, which the Commons will begin acrimoniously debating next week, a President of the European Council will be created in 2009. He will hold the post for two and a half years (renewable once), and he will have "strategic direction" of the European Union. He will be appointed by the council, ie by the heads of government, under the French presidency in the second half of this year.
It is reported that the Lefties do not much want Mr Blair. In Italy, Romano Prodi disapproves of him because he supported Silvio Berlusconi. In Spain, the Socialist government dislikes him so much that the defence minister unguardedly called him "un gilipollas integral", which is too rude to translate.
But the Germans seem friendly, and the French even more so (though a machiavellian rumour says that perfide Sarko is only pretending). A recent poll in Le Figaro reported that 80 per cent of Frenchmen would like Mr Blair in their government, let alone that of the EU. Enraging the Socialists to whom he is nominally allied, Mr Blair recently addressed the annual conference of Mr Sarkozy’s party. By a happy chance, Tony and Cherie were in the same hotel in Egypt as Sarko and his lovely girlfriend/fiancée/possibly bride, Carla Bruni, and the four had dinner together.
The beauty of all this is that, as so often, Mr Blair’s personal ambition sits neatly with his stated beliefs. Throughout his career, he has been as pro-European as a mainstream British politician can safely be. He is particularly Francophile – remember his immediate welcome for President Chirac in Canary Wharf when he became Prime Minister, his St Malo defence treaty, his eloquent speech, in French, to the National Assembly.
He is so good at timing. Even his decision to become a Roman Catholic, though perfectly sincere, comes at the right moment. It would have been a negative while he was Prime Minister. If he wants a top post in continental Europe, it becomes an advantage. Brussels is worth a Mass.
I believe Charles is 100% right. Blair is a triangulator par excellence. I believe he years to become the First President of Europe – the neo Holy Roman Emperor. Look upon his face my friends, and despair.
Here’s a great example of the liberal BIAS that permeates the BBC.
Check out the following features in the linked article on the US elections.
First, it is headed "US Presidential votes wide open." I agree, so they are, but then check the lead photo – three smiling Democrat contenders. By way of balance, they show a quote from John McCain apologising for his embarrassment at the behavior of his President and party. Yeah, REAL balance there. eh?
The article leads with the Democrats, and concludes with those pesky GOP candidates, beating the drum for John McCain and Huckabee along the way, naturally. (Though it does get the words "bestiality" and "Huckabee" linked It is also so obvious the BBC dislikes Romney and wishes he would go away.
Bias is a strange beast. It can come in the subtle colours, but it is always there. Should a republican win the Presidential election, there will be mass mourning amongst the media. They know which side they support.
The Labour MP has signed an amendment to the Bill, which returns to the floor of the Commons on Monday, calling for a referendum on the treaty.
Stuart believes the UK’s Europe minister should be a cabinet-level post, akin to a deputy prime minister, and should be directly accountable to the Westminster parliament.
She also wants an assurance that any future changes to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the European parliament would be subject to primary legislation in the House of Commons.
In an interview with Guardian Unlimited, Stuart said: “I think this document pushes to the limits the areas I think I could just about agree with, but I would need further safeguards, so these are the limits and I think that’s what this debate is going to be about.”
Stuart said the revised document gave the European Union a “toolbox” of powers that would allow it to “interfere in virtually every aspect of our lives”.
“There is no longer a question of saying, there are certain things that the union can’t touch. Actually the union can touch everything.”
Pressed on her objection to the treaty, Stuart said: “I don’t think this is going to work.”
Asked why, she added: “Because of a lack of legitimacy in the eyes of large swaths of people across Europe … The crunch will be the environment. If you look at the golden opportunity to tax the little people into oblivion acceleration of climate change, at the moment on the environment we are in a comfort zone of thinking all we need to do is take our bottles to the skip, recycle our newspapers; if you are really daring you say we should put tax on plastic carrier bags. And we think that’s enough.
“Well the penny is going to drop that it’s not going to be enough, and you will need to make a decision on whether you tax or ration carbon emissions. Of course no one country can sensibly do this on its own, so this will be a classic case of where you need the EU to do this. And the EU will start to ask its citizens to stop doing something they have always comfortably done before. There will be some fairly hard demands.
“People accept hard demands if that’s a deal from their own government. But when politicians across Europe start saying, as they have always done, ‘it is not us’ – it’s always been the politician’s way of getting out of uncomfortable positions – at that point, it doesn’t have that kind of legitimacy.” Describing the Lisbon treaty as the same as the failed EU constitution “in substance”, Stuart said: “I’ve been struggling to find analogies of how you compare this. It’s like a cookery recipe: all the same ingredients, but you’ve just rearranged them differently. Or [former French president] Giscard d’Estaing came up with a wonderful phrase: he said, ‘it’s the same letter; just in a different envelope‘.
Stepping up pressure on Gordon Brown to call a referendum, Stuart said: “My view is whether you call it a constitution or whether you call it a treaty, in essence it is something pretty significant, and it’s a matter of trust now for the political parties to honour their promise.
“The British people should be given a say, as they were promised by all the major political parties in the 2005 election.
“I certainly will find it difficult to vote for the treaty on Monday unless there is a commitment to have a referendum.”
How ’bout dem apples?!? Like Gordon Brown, Gisela Stuart is a member of the Labour Party and she’s just thrown down the gauntlet.
Warning of the potential for Europe creep, Stuart said: “I give you one example. Ten years ago everyone said health was [the competence of] national member states. Absolutely no doubt about it. You then started to get court cases where people from one European country were going to another European country for dental treatment. The question was, was that part of the internal market? One of the key things of the European Union.
“So we have the first court decision, the European Court of Justice, that says, ‘yes, it is part of the internal market’. And then over a number of years you get more and more decisions because cases come up, until last year when someone in England goes over to France to jump waiting lists and the courts say ‘well yes, you can do that, but you need prior permission and all kinds of caveats’ – but the principle is established.
“You then at the same time over those 10 years have things like CJD [and] bird flu, so people say, ‘well of course, bird flu and CJD don’t recognise national boundaries, so public health must be an EU competence.’ So we make public health an EU competence; we make health service delivery a court judgment … so what’s the next thing?
“A European commission draws up a proposals for an EU health directive, which it did before Christmas, then decides to withdraw it to consult more. It doesn’t say we’ll put it back on the table, and as we in the UK are the only ones to have a totally taxpayer-funded [health] system we will have particular problems. But this just illustrates that there is nothing where the EU doesn’t have means – whether it’s court judgments; whether it’s internal market; free movement of labour – the way it makes laws. In every way it now has means, and once it has taken away a UK competence, there is no way you can ever go back.”
Stuart called for a strengthening of the prime minister’s assurances over QMV.
“The prime minister committed himself to saying, ‘no more extension of qualified majority voting or any further powers unless this house agrees to it.‘ Well, I would like that tightened up,” Stuart said. “First of all, the only area where that could happen is in defence and foreign policy, because everything else already has gone to QMV.
“But I would want primary legislation, so it’s not just one vote the government can whip through with their majority, but [instead] it would actually have to be a bill and go through the House, and go through [all] the stages.
“The second thing is the way the House itself operates has to change – very, very significantly.”
Asked how she would vote in a referendum, Stuart said: “I don’t know yet. There are a number of things I would want to hear from our ministers, and assurances in terms of their interpretation, and it will be extremely finely balanced which way I will go.
“My argument is that all the deals struck in Brussels need to be answered at the dispatch box. Create a proper Europe minister, take the Europe minister out of the Foreign Office, but make that person accountable for those negotiations. And that’s almost a deputy prime minister post.
“I want them to come to the dispatch box every two weeks and say ‘those are the deals we have struck’. I think you would find that that person would probably be responsible for negotiating something like 50% of our legislation, and that would merit a cabinet post.”
Given that, in conventional far-left ideology, white people are the evil oppressors (the "dominant constituency", the "hegemons"), and non-whites the poor, oppressed, and powerless victims, the following report made interesting reading:
White people are less likely to feel they can influence decisions on running Britain than other ethnic groups, a government survey suggests.
Some 19% of white people agreed they had a say, compared with 33% of other groups, the Department for Communities and Local Government found.
Black African people were most likely to think they could have an influence – 38% said they could.
The DCLG surveyed 3,905 people between April and August last year.
The second most confident group, in terms of its ability to influence the country, was Bangladeshis, on 36%.
But…Muslims are the most oppressed, powerless, and victimised group in history ever…aren’t they?
Next on 35% were Indians, followed by 34% of Pakistanis and 33% of black Caribbean people.
White people were also the least likely to feel they could influence their local area – 37% of those surveyed agreed they could, compared with a national average of 47%.
The groups most confident in their ability to shape local affairs were black Caribbean and black African people on 51%.
The figures refer to respondents who replied they "definitely agree" or "tend to agree" they could influence decisions.
Of course, my instinctive reaction is to say that this suggests that Africans are unusually gullible, while whites are disproportionately likely to be realistic about their chances of influencing politicians. With all three main parties singing the same raucous tune from the same rotten hymn sheet, the chances of the general public effecting any real change on any important issue anytime in the foreseeable future is virtually nil. For example, a strong majority of opinion has always opposed mass immigration, and levels of opposition have recently passed 80%, yet no government has ever responded to the views of the public on this issue, and we are presently witnessing the highest levels of immigration in our history. Equally, although there has been overwhelming support for a referendum on the recently-signed EU constitution, Gordon Brown went straight ahead and signed up to the constitution, in violation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, and in spite of the large majority who opposed his decision to sign. And in February 2003, the fact that over a million people marched in protest against Tony Blair’s plans for war in Iraq didn’t stop a single bomb being dropped, or a single bullet being fired. Nor did the petition signed by 1.8million people opposing road pricing alter government policy. No, the only way anyone can influence future decisions is by paying a hefty bribe to the Labour Party (a la Bernie Ecclestone), and anyone who thinks that there is any other way is a contemptible fool.
But, having said this, it does seem that, to the limited extent within which the politicians do pay attention to the views of the general public, it is the views of those members of the public who are not white which take precedence. Consider the manner in which politicians of all parties embarrass themselves in their efforts to gain the Muslim bloc vote, or their desperate attempts to avoid any imputation of racism, however fanciful. Or consider the hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money which is used specifically and solely for the benefits of non-whites, through such schemes as the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant for schools. One can certainly see why non-whites are more likely than whites to feel that they can influence decisions, even if they are still, ultimately, overoptimistic.
Finally, I would suggest that, were the results the other way round, and were it found that whites were most likely to believe that they had the power to change things, then there would almost certainly be a media outcry, just as there is whenever blacks perform worse than whites in their school exams. Race hustlers and liberal academics would queue up to tell us that this was reflective of institutional racism, of white hegemony, of the legacy of slavery. There would be demands for more money for blacks, more apologies and reparations for slavery, programmes of preferential treatment in the workplace. So, why is it that, as with the poor performance of working class white children in education, this news has been greeted with almost total silence?
Happy days! I read that a millionaire businessman has said how he hopes to build a £1bn nuclear power station in Northern Ireland. Londonderry entrepreneur Robert Andrews – founder of the hi-tech Andronics satellite products company – said he is preparing an environmental impact study to see what effect a nuclear power station would have on the region. The Government last week gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations on mainland Britain. And Mr Andrews believes the Irish and British governments should reach a decision about a similar move here – and that it should be built in the North West.
Now this would be most welcome news, as I think a nuclear power plant would be a lovely adornment to the charming Bogside. And we would all enjoy the cheap clean power!!
The old "I'm gay" so it doesn't matter who I murder you can't deport me. And we fall for this! http://t.co/peiE4rd4Jv
THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM
You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.
Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved). Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.