web analytics

A RARE INSIGHT….

By ATWadmin On January 30th, 2007 at 7:37 am

Paisley3.jpgDon’t know if anyone else saw the interview with DUP Leader Ian Paisley on UTV’s "Insight" programme last evening, but I managed to catch it and was suitably unimpressed. Dr Paisley would do well to buy himself a decent Satnav, with his incessant chatter about "Ulster has a long road to travel"..etc etc.

For a man of 80 years old, he did very well. For a principled unionist, he did very badly as he failed to avoid giving the clea impression that he WILL sit in joint power with IRA Godfather Martin McGuinness. He also failed to explain what made him go back on solemn pledges previously given to the NI unionist electorate. The DUP is preparing to enter an administration with an unrepentant IRA, with an Army Council still intact, with a terror infra-structure still intact, still armed, with the blood of thousands still on its hands. No amount of waffle from the good Doctor avoids this brutal fact. The DUP have morphed into the UUP lie – two-faced and gutless, and it’s time this was spoken of clearly and unambiguously.

WHY DISCRIMINATION IS GOOD….

By ATWadmin On January 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am

I was struck by the Prime Minister’s assertion that Government is RIGHT not to allow Roman Catholic any exemption for its adoption agencies to opt out of Gay Supremacy laws on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience because…"There is no place in our society for discrimination."

Rubbish. Discrimination is a very important aspect of our liberty.

I discriminate everyday, and so do you, dear reader.

In choosing to visit this site, you have wilfully ignored millions of others. This is active discrimination on your behalf and I am glad of it. When you decide what to consume for your breakfast, you will discriminate against various food groups. When you go to work, you discriminate against a wide range of occupations and professions. You will have specific friends at your place of work – you apply discrimination in determining who they will be. You may buy a daily newspaper – in doing this you discriminate againt dozens of competing titles. DISCRIMINATION is the act of a civilised and thoughtful person.

However the hateful radical egalitarians in Government seek to remove your right to discriminate, to choose. They seek to FORCE you what to do. The callous disregard they have shown towards faith groups who seek the right to exercise freedom of conscience is typical. In the name of equality, they close down choice. They cynically portray objection to homosexuality in the same terms as objecton to racism. Once again, this is rubbish. Many faiths are clear on the matter; homosexuality is sinful. They should be free to exercise this point of view. Our totalitarian masters seek to crush this view.

Attacking the Roman Catholic Church is but the latest front they have opened up on the war on liberty.

That Scientific Method

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I read a quote from a climate scientist a few years ago, the message of which stayed with me ever since, even though I lost the reference, couldn’t remember exactly how it went and couldn’t even remember the name of the scientist. There have been times since when it would have been useful to refer to it but, alas, I thought it had gone for good. The quote didn’t concern the ‘what’ so much as the ‘why’ some scientists may do what they do. In the area of climate science it may explain alot or nothing at all.

In hunting for something else, I stumbled across that very quote at Tim Blair’s place. The scientist is Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and the quote dates from 1996. It pre-dates therefore, The IPCC, the Kyoto Accord and a whole bunch of reports and studies predicting catastrophe if we don’t change our ways. Onto the quote (emphasis mine):

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

I make no claim to this quote offering proof of anything and I don’t attampt to directly link it to that whole bunch of subsequent studies which, one could say, offered up some scary scenarios. I just think it’s interesting and thought I’d leave it here for reference.

DISHONOUR KILLINGS…

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

I hear a lot from our liberal media about how Islam is the religion of peace and love and why we are wrong to be judgemental about it. Try this out.

A father shot dead his 17-year-old daughter, having suspected her of having sex, and surrendered to the police in the latest of the "honour killings" that have brought international opprobrium on Jordan.

An autopsy found the girl to be a virgin.Weeks earlier the girl had returned home from a family protection clinic after doctors had vouched for virginity and the father had signed a pledge not to harm her, a state forensic pathologist said. The father shot her four times in the head, said the pathologist.

FOUR TIMES in the head. His own daughter. All in the name of Islam. Shocking. 

I would remind you that Jordan is constantly portrayed as a progressive Islamic country.

FOUR BULLETS in the head.

betrayal

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

26989.jpgJust finished reading the novel ‘Saturday’ by Ian McEwan and am well into Nick Cohens ‘What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost their Way’.  In an age of shifting politics and confusion, this is an insight into the growing sense of betrayal on the Left and the progressive left wing thought attempting to redress that imbalance (vitally in my opinion). Both the Left and the Right are feeling betrayed.  Interesting times ahead so thought id share  a useful review

 In Ian McEwan’s novel ‘Saturday’, the protagonist Henry Perowne watches as demonstrators gather for the massive anti-war march of February 2003. He is struck, and slightly disturbed, by the levity of the crowd. ‘Everyone is thrilled to be out together on the streets – people are hugging themselves, it seems, as well as each other.’

The protestors may be right, Perowne muses: leaving Saddam’s sanguinary dictatorship in place might, just, be preferable to aerial bombing and invasion. But they ought to be ‘sombre’ in this view – it’s a dreadful moral calculus, after all, that weighs summary execution and ‘occasional genocide’ against the hazards of regime change. …The marchers’ placards and slogans catch Perowne’s eye too. Some belong to the Islamist group that helped to organise the march, an outfit, Perowne remembers, which believes that ‘apostasy from Islam was an offence punishable by death.’ Others bear the legend ‘Not in My Name’, a phrase whose ‘cloying self-regard suggests a bright new world of protest, with the fussy consumers of shampoos and soft drinks demanding to feel good, or nice.’

The journalist Nick Cohen quotes this passage in his new book ‘What’s Left?’

Cohen tells me he felt very much like Henry Perowne when he watched that million-strong crowd walking through central London. ‘There wasn’t a single banner criticizing Saddam Hussein. I thought at the time, surely that’s going to change, surely they’ll be able to criticize Bush and Blair but at the same time support the people in Iraq who deserve something better than Saddam. But they never did. I realised that people on the left who had once supported Iraqi socialists were going to dump them. That’s when the iron entered the soul. That’s when I thought something is going very badly wrong and that I need to write about it.’

Instead of supporting socialists and trade unionists in Iraq once Saddam had been overthrown, some on the left went so far as to romanticise the insurgency launched by Baathist irregulars and radical Islamists, declaring it to be a movement of ‘national liberation’

‘What’s Left?’ is not a book about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq but rather an attempt to answer the question of betrayal….Cohen insists that there is something distinctive about the latest ideological mutation on the left. For one thing, he says, ‘socialism as a practical political project is simply dead.’ What remains is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Thought for the Day

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

“So often freedom is presented as a relentless search for pleasure or new experiences. Yet this is a condemnation, not a liberation! True freedom could never condemn the individual – especially a child – to an insatiable quest for novelty.” – Pope Benedict XVII in a talk on Video Games  and television for children.

(I can’t promise I’ll have a thought for every day, but I’ll try.) 

Shock Horror, Young Moslems ‘Radical’

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Do you prefer new news or old news? Whichever you like, the Telegraph (and others, of course) is guaranteed to satisfy with it’s headline "Young, British Muslims ‘getting more radical". Turns out 40% of moslems "between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain… The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent". Lest we forget what sharia law entails, the Telegraph reminds us that "In some countries, people found guilty under sharia law face penalties such as beheading, stoning, the severing of a hand or being lashed". And this is desired by a large number of people in the UK today.

It’s no great surprise that it’s the younger people, of course. Younger people have a tendency to see the world in black and white, or so I’m told by old fogeys. This, I think, is a good thing. Good must be seen as good and evil as evil. And this counts even more so for young people who have chosen a religious lifestyle. But this is where it starts to go sour, religion isn’t all the same after all. In 2007, Christians don’t stone, behead or whip, nor do Jews or Hindus or Sikhs, to the best of my knowledge. Those Dark Age practices are only carried out today by one religious group, but it’d be legally iffy for me to tell you which one, probably.

At risk of seeming over-simplistic, and possibly being accused of all sorts of nonsensical nationalist, racist, BNP (I am not now nor have I ever been…) etc views, I think it’s not unreasonable to trace a lot of this back to immigration and its related issues. Related issues being, of course, multiculturalism, liberalism, and a pervasive, all-around weakening of national will, morale and national sentiment.

These kids are born of parents settled here, but can feel that they have deep roots elsewhere, and so have huge and important questions of identity. We, cowed into fear of praising our own culture and British life, don’t or can’t say enough to make them feel British, so of course they go looking elsewhere. What do people expect? And when young people, so convinced of their own religious and moral standing, look around at where they are, a country with no apparent morals, ethics, or sense of direction, of course they feel that ‘their way’ is superior. Not only because they have a way, but because ours is too weak to sustain itself. And most forms of Nazism and Fascism respect strength a good deal more than weakness.

A commentor on the Telegraph’s site states that:

"This may be England but it ain’t English any more. Of course Sharia law will become legal in England. It s clearly the fault of the English for not complying to Muslim demands quicker. People on this “People Corner” who constantly go on about these people should go home, they are already home. Anyone who is not Muslim, are not able to say anything without being arrested."

I wonder if that commentor, like me, wakes up, goes out of his door and asks himself ‘Where’s my country gone?’.

 

Answer? Oh, an answer. Some kind of solution rather than just commenting ‘oh crap, we broke the country’? Well, how about this? Let England be English, Britain be British, and those who don’t like it, want to destroy it or change it to something completely other, can use the busiest, most user-friendly airport in the world, and get out. There’s room for some amount of others, but not an indefinite amount, and certainly not an uncontrolled amount. As to destroying the country from within, there are words for that. Traitor, quisling, 5th-columnist. We used to have punishments for treason. But then, we used to have a country.

flugel’s law at work?

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am

Wandered around David’s blogroll updates, and came across this little gem in Midnight Blue, and reproduce the graphic for your enjoyment!

 

greenhouse calculation.gif

Good, Traditional, Conservative Family Values.

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am

Dear old Dave, isn’t he precious? Now we finally have something for him to stand up and be definite about, like this homosexual adoption problem, he’s decided to….. join in the orgy of anti-Catholicism. According to the Telegraph:

"Mr Cameron said he would support new regulations that would force the agencies, along with all other groups who find homes for children whose parents cannot look after them, to accept suitable applications from homosexual couples."

Mr Cameron himself is reported as saying:

"On the issue of the Catholic adoption agencies, I don’t think personally that it is right to give them a block exemption from the law, because otherwise we will have other people wanting block exemptions from the law… I think we really need to find a decent compromise, because we want to keep the Catholic adoption agencies.

"I think, for instance, giving them three to four extra years to comply with the law will give them time to work out solutions such as twinning with other adoption agencies…

We are talking about a tiny number of adoptions and we need to get a sense of perspective about this."

Begins to look like he’s every bit the weasel of his Labour counterpart, but under different colours. Oh, no, they changed the logo to be more friendly, didn’t they? Oh how his predecessors must be spinning in their graves!

A few things this little exerpt tells us:

 – Cameron seems to believe that the State should have power over all people, regardless of the religious beliefs of those people.
 – Cameron seems to believe that the Catholic agencies must come into line, and that within a given time-limit. (Or else)
 – Most importantly, it appears that Cameron believes that matters of morality (even religious morality) should be decided on the question of numbers of incidence. On this logic, perhaps we could conclude that patients in NHS care being sexually abused should just get used to it because it’s a small number?

Whatever the actual workings (if any) of David Cameron’s mind, one thing becomes increasingly clear. In all these efforts to make the Conservative party look friendlier and more presentable, the Tories are losing their way, the attraction they held to their old guard, and any semblance of what they should be. Morphing into Nu-Labour lite won’t help them a jot. We already have one bag of such vipers, why would we go for a newer lot?

ONCE A KNIGHT IS NOT ENOUGH…..

By ATWadmin On January 29th, 2007 at 10:06 am

sir reg.jpgJust a little business to take care of with regard to the UUP following their leader, Sir Reg Empey’s reaction to the IRA/Sinn Fein provisional offer to support policing. Empey says….

"Today’s vote is the inevitable outworking of the peace process begun in the mid nineties, requiring as it did that all parties commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The UUP has been saying for months that Sinn Fein had nowhere else to go as they had to sign up to the Pledge of Office to support law and order before joining any future executive. It should also be noted that the decision of the SDLP to support policing in 2001 made today only a matter of time. The tragedy is that it has taken republicans so long to wake up to change and play their last card. "

A few points.

Sir Reg was also one of those who assured us that Sinn Fein/IRA had signed up to "exclusively peaceful and democratic means" back in 1995, and then in 1997, and then when he went into Government with these rogues in 1999. Since he was wrong on those occasions, why should we think he is right now?

Next, Sir Reg seems to be trying to take some sort of credit for the IRA deigning to offer conditional support on policing. Sit Reg was also one of those who assured us that the RUC has been saved.  I think he should be ashamed of his track record on this matter. If he sees his biggest achievement being that of getting terrorists into policing, god help him.