Article on the BBC Website this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi says the EU should pay Libya at least 5bn euros (£4bn; $6.3bn) a year to stop illegal African immigration and avoid a "black Europe".
Speaking on a visit to Italy, Col Gaddafi said Europe "could turn into Africa" as "there are millions of Africans who want to come in".
Italy has drawn criticism for handing over to Libya migrants it intercepts at sea, without screening them first.
Far fewer now reach Italy from Libya.
European Commission figures show that in 2009 the number of people caught trying to enter Italy illegally fell to 7,300, from 32,052 in 2008. The data was collected under the EU's Eurodac fingerprinting system.
Col Gaddafi has forged close ties with Italy since a friendship treaty was signed two years ago. It sought to draw a line under historic bitterness between Libya and Italy, its former colonial master.
"Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in," said Col Gaddafi, quoted by the AFP news agency.
He was speaking at a ceremony in Rome late on Monday, standing next to Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
"We don't know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans," Col Gaddafi said.
"We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions."
Audience of women
Col Gaddafi has long seen himself as a champion of African interests on the international stage and has hosted many summits with African leaders.
Mr Berlusconi made no immediate comment on Col Gaddafi's demand.
Italy has been carrying out joint naval patrols with Libya for the past year, intercepting illegal migrants at sea.
The BBC's David Willey says Col Gaddafi's visit to Rome was overshadowed by another controversial speech he made - to two groups of several hundred young Italian women, hired at a fee of 70 or 80 euros each from a local modelling agency.
He told them that Islam should become the religion of Europe and gave them free copies of the Koran, after he had lectured them for an hour on the freedoms enjoyed by women in Libya.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Media Pressure Valves
One of my fellow members in the U.K recently made me aware of this video on Youtube by Pat Condell. In his latest offering, he has given his views on the planned mosque near Ground Zero. As usual, Pat hits the nail on the head with a short and sweet overview of what is going to happen.
Link from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4
Now, Pat is very popular on Youtube and Liveleak, but something just doesn't add up. In a way, he reminds most British Nationalists of The Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn. He, like Pat openly promotes most of the BNP's policies in their column inches, on T.V or Youtube videos, but when asked if they would vote for the BNP, they say, "of course not."
Richard Littlejohn has even written in the Daily Mail that BNP Members are knuckle scraping scum. He was also recorded on Sky News, during 2004, confirming that he used the insult above ito describe our members and supporters.
Link from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmlaur5UsA
To most people, Richard Littlejohn and Pat Condell are speaking out for them. They feel that Pat and Richard are putting their necks on the line for their benefit. In a way, they are seen as being the voices of the silent majority.
Most would not even dare speak their minds incase they were branded as Islamophobes, Sexists, Racists, Bigots, Small Minded, etc. But as Pat and Richard are doing it, they must be very brave, and on the side of the average working class man and woman. In regards to Richard Littlejohn, he is not a spokeman for the working class, he is the voice of the Daily Mail. From a report on Wikipedia, it appears that he doing very well out of borrowing our policies for his newspaper column, to the tune of $1.4 - $1.6 Million per year.
It seems that most of the fence-sitters in British society, who spend most of their time watching brainwashing soap operas, realilty T.V, or spreading gossip about their ex-boyfriend/work colleagues over Facebook, have no idea of what these people are up to. Most of them secretly support our party and its aims, but because Richard or Pat do not approve of us, they vote Conservative or Liberal Democrats instead. I know of the growing interest in our party because of the increasing volume of maybes declared when asked by a polling company if the member of the public would vote BNP.
It's time that these people are exposed to the truth contained in the following BNP publications:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/ (Main Site)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/freedom.html (Freedom Newspaper)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/identity.html (Identity Magazine)
The BNP stands up for its policies and members
Link from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4
Now, Pat is very popular on Youtube and Liveleak, but something just doesn't add up. In a way, he reminds most British Nationalists of The Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn. He, like Pat openly promotes most of the BNP's policies in their column inches, on T.V or Youtube videos, but when asked if they would vote for the BNP, they say, "of course not."
Richard Littlejohn has even written in the Daily Mail that BNP Members are knuckle scraping scum. He was also recorded on Sky News, during 2004, confirming that he used the insult above ito describe our members and supporters.
Link from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmlaur5UsA
To most people, Richard Littlejohn and Pat Condell are speaking out for them. They feel that Pat and Richard are putting their necks on the line for their benefit. In a way, they are seen as being the voices of the silent majority.
Most would not even dare speak their minds incase they were branded as Islamophobes, Sexists, Racists, Bigots, Small Minded, etc. But as Pat and Richard are doing it, they must be very brave, and on the side of the average working class man and woman. In regards to Richard Littlejohn, he is not a spokeman for the working class, he is the voice of the Daily Mail. From a report on Wikipedia, it appears that he doing very well out of borrowing our policies for his newspaper column, to the tune of $1.4 - $1.6 Million per year.
It seems that most of the fence-sitters in British society, who spend most of their time watching brainwashing soap operas, realilty T.V, or spreading gossip about their ex-boyfriend/work colleagues over Facebook, have no idea of what these people are up to. Most of them secretly support our party and its aims, but because Richard or Pat do not approve of us, they vote Conservative or Liberal Democrats instead. I know of the growing interest in our party because of the increasing volume of maybes declared when asked by a polling company if the member of the public would vote BNP.
It's time that these people are exposed to the truth contained in the following BNP publications:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/ (Main Site)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/freedom.html (Freedom Newspaper)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/identity.html (Identity Magazine)
The BNP stands up for its policies and members
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Spot The Difference
Jan Brewer's (Governor of Arizona) Letter to Barack Obama
Request for help from Jan Brewer:
Mr. President, the need for action to secure Arizona’s border could not be clearer. Recently, my office received a number of calls from constituents concerned at reports of new sign postings in interior counties of Arizona warning residents not to access federal lands due to criminal activity associated with the border. These warnings signal to some that we have handed over portions of our border areas to illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. This is unacceptable. Instead of warning Americans to stay out of parts of our own country, we ought to be warning international lawbreakers that they will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to be establishing measures to ensure that illegal traffic of any sort is kept to an absolute minimum, and that Americans are safe and secure within our own borders.
When we visited, you committed to present details, within two weeks of our meeting, regarding your plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and expend $500 million in additional funds on border security matters. You also discussed sending members of your senior staff to Arizona to discuss your plans. While I am pleased the 28th has been set for a meeting time and we have reviewed a copy of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Southwest Border Next Steps” Press Release, I am still awaiting details on National Guard deployments and how the proposed additional border security funding will specifically affect Arizona (and the other Border States). As I mentioned to you on June 3rd, it is very difficult to have much of a dialogue without specific details regarding your proposals. I strongly urge you to request your staff provide us with missing details of your proposals prior to the meeting on the 28th.
While we await the specific details of your border security plans, I wanted to take the time to reemphasize some of what I shared with you and respond further to some of what we discussed. In essence, I have proposed a four-point Border Surge strategy, as outlined in my recent letter to Senator Charles Schumer, summarized as follows:
National Guard Personnel and Aviation
I believe a significant number of troops operating with a legitimate mission set is an essential part of any strategy to secure the border. I appreciate your commitment of 1,200 troops and the promise that Arizona would receive the largest contingent. I am concerned, however, that more is required, such as the deployment of 6,000 personnel proposed by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain for the entire southwestern border.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDlN7VLmXQ&feature=player_embedded
Obama's Response:
Senate Passes Border Security Bill
Los Angeles Times (08/13/10) Mascaro, Lisa
The U.S. House and Senate on Thursday passed a border security bill that supporters hope will be the first step on the path towards comprehensive immigration reform. The bill provides $600 million to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, money that will be used to deploy 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new Customs and Border Protection Officers, and 250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. In addition, two unmanned surveillance planes would be deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a supporter of the bill, said Thursday that he hopes the legislation will break the deadlock in Congress over immigration and allow bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform to resume. The bill is expected to be signed into law by President Obama on Friday.
Obama's Priorities:
- 50,000 (was 150,000) troops in Iraq and 7,000 private security contractors lined up to take over from late August/early September. According to the Whitehouse, this figure will start to decrease from September, with a complete withdrawal during 2012.
- 98,000 troops on Afghanistani soil too.
So, Mr. Obama can provide close to 200,000 army personnel to protect the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, but cannot scrape the remaining 4,500 trained guards for his own southern border.
- British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government. In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. -
Update on Security Contractors:
News came from the President of Afghanistan today, to make the 52 Serving Security Guard companies aware that he has just signed a decree which gives them four months to pull out of his country. He has notified the companies of his plan, and will only allow the guards that are working on contracts at the U.S Embassy or on Non-Government organisations to continue their operations. All Afghanistani paramilitaries have been told that they have to disband their security companies and/or join the Afghanistani Police Force.
This obviously throws a wrench in the works, now that 1,000's of U.S troops have crossed the Kuwaiti border to head home to their friends and families .
Request for help from Jan Brewer:
Mr. President, the need for action to secure Arizona’s border could not be clearer. Recently, my office received a number of calls from constituents concerned at reports of new sign postings in interior counties of Arizona warning residents not to access federal lands due to criminal activity associated with the border. These warnings signal to some that we have handed over portions of our border areas to illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. This is unacceptable. Instead of warning Americans to stay out of parts of our own country, we ought to be warning international lawbreakers that they will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to be establishing measures to ensure that illegal traffic of any sort is kept to an absolute minimum, and that Americans are safe and secure within our own borders.
When we visited, you committed to present details, within two weeks of our meeting, regarding your plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and expend $500 million in additional funds on border security matters. You also discussed sending members of your senior staff to Arizona to discuss your plans. While I am pleased the 28th has been set for a meeting time and we have reviewed a copy of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Southwest Border Next Steps” Press Release, I am still awaiting details on National Guard deployments and how the proposed additional border security funding will specifically affect Arizona (and the other Border States). As I mentioned to you on June 3rd, it is very difficult to have much of a dialogue without specific details regarding your proposals. I strongly urge you to request your staff provide us with missing details of your proposals prior to the meeting on the 28th.
While we await the specific details of your border security plans, I wanted to take the time to reemphasize some of what I shared with you and respond further to some of what we discussed. In essence, I have proposed a four-point Border Surge strategy, as outlined in my recent letter to Senator Charles Schumer, summarized as follows:
National Guard Personnel and Aviation
I believe a significant number of troops operating with a legitimate mission set is an essential part of any strategy to secure the border. I appreciate your commitment of 1,200 troops and the promise that Arizona would receive the largest contingent. I am concerned, however, that more is required, such as the deployment of 6,000 personnel proposed by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain for the entire southwestern border.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDlN7VLmXQ&feature=player_embedded
Obama's Response:
Senate Passes Border Security Bill
Los Angeles Times (08/13/10) Mascaro, Lisa
The U.S. House and Senate on Thursday passed a border security bill that supporters hope will be the first step on the path towards comprehensive immigration reform. The bill provides $600 million to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, money that will be used to deploy 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new Customs and Border Protection Officers, and 250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. In addition, two unmanned surveillance planes would be deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a supporter of the bill, said Thursday that he hopes the legislation will break the deadlock in Congress over immigration and allow bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform to resume. The bill is expected to be signed into law by President Obama on Friday.
Obama's Priorities:
- 50,000 (was 150,000) troops in Iraq and 7,000 private security contractors lined up to take over from late August/early September. According to the Whitehouse, this figure will start to decrease from September, with a complete withdrawal during 2012.
- 98,000 troops on Afghanistani soil too.
So, Mr. Obama can provide close to 200,000 army personnel to protect the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, but cannot scrape the remaining 4,500 trained guards for his own southern border.
- British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government. In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. -
Update on Security Contractors:
News came from the President of Afghanistan today, to make the 52 Serving Security Guard companies aware that he has just signed a decree which gives them four months to pull out of his country. He has notified the companies of his plan, and will only allow the guards that are working on contracts at the U.S Embassy or on Non-Government organisations to continue their operations. All Afghanistani paramilitaries have been told that they have to disband their security companies and/or join the Afghanistani Police Force.
This obviously throws a wrench in the works, now that 1,000's of U.S troops have crossed the Kuwaiti border to head home to their friends and families .
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Nick Griffin MEP & Simon Darby - U.S Radio Shows
- Radio Free Mississippi America - Jim Giles Interview (August 11, 2010)
Radio station web address: http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/
http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio/RFM-2010-08-11-NickGriffin.mp3
With Simon Darby
Radio Free Mississippi America - Jim Giles Interview (November 18, 2009)
http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio/RFM-2009-11-18-SimonDarby.mp3
- Liberty News Radio America - James Edwards Interview (August 2009)
Radio station web address: http://www.libertynewsradio.com/
Topics discussed during the interview include:
- The Islamification of the West
- Freedom of speech or the Lack of it within Europe within the new E.U.S.S.R.
- Self Governance, Border control, State security.
- Climate Change, the truth and Peak Oil!
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfQ4u12gRlE
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwIqTL9-3pQ
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzEPemVdCRA
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w872_JVwnT8
Friday, August 13, 2010
Plaid Against Patriotic Red Arrows
The anti English/Pro Muslim party of Wales have just announced that they believe that the best way to save tax payers' money is to scrap the RAF Red Arrows air display team. At a time when large numbers of British people are losing their jobs and hope for the future, we hear the true voice of the unpatriot and negative Plaid Cymru. A spokesman for the RAF in Wales hit back at Jonathan Edwards MP (PC) by saying that the "Red Arrows are a flag-waver and were of great value to the armed forces and British industry".
The Red Arrows bring great excitement and patriotic pride to spectators whenever they appear at events across the U.K. Click on the links below for a taster of what the Red Arrows do to wow the crowds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHyaeaMqsJQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8xemUxjgtE&feature=related
If Plaid Cmyru really wanted to save money, they could have suggested that the current ConDem coalition should scrap its International Aid budget, so that funds are made available for the Red Arrows and the National Health Service. Instead, they have decided that it would make better financial sense to ring-fence the existing 0.7% (£9.1 Billion) of the U.K's GDP, so that countries such as China and India can continue to receive funding towards their space/defense progams. Being the good samaritans that Plaid Cymru are, they have decided that bankrupt Britain should bailout the unaffordable debts of the worlds developing countries too.
The British National Party's policy towards Overseas Aid and bailing out the third world is as follows:
- A BNP government will reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain. The time has come for change. -
Finally, it's interesting to see that they are keen to continue their push to become the true party of Islam in Wales, by campaigning for the rights of Turkey to join the EU.
Mohammed Ashgar, ex-Welsh Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru, is seen in this link leading an Islamic march through the streets of a Welsh City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cly-56dCnIY&feature=fvw
The Red Arrows bring great excitement and patriotic pride to spectators whenever they appear at events across the U.K. Click on the links below for a taster of what the Red Arrows do to wow the crowds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHyaeaMqsJQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8xemUxjgtE&feature=related
If Plaid Cmyru really wanted to save money, they could have suggested that the current ConDem coalition should scrap its International Aid budget, so that funds are made available for the Red Arrows and the National Health Service. Instead, they have decided that it would make better financial sense to ring-fence the existing 0.7% (£9.1 Billion) of the U.K's GDP, so that countries such as China and India can continue to receive funding towards their space/defense progams. Being the good samaritans that Plaid Cymru are, they have decided that bankrupt Britain should bailout the unaffordable debts of the worlds developing countries too.
The British National Party's policy towards Overseas Aid and bailing out the third world is as follows:
- A BNP government will reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain. The time has come for change. -
Finally, it's interesting to see that they are keen to continue their push to become the true party of Islam in Wales, by campaigning for the rights of Turkey to join the EU.
Mohammed Ashgar, ex-Welsh Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru, is seen in this link leading an Islamic march through the streets of a Welsh City.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cly-56dCnIY&feature=fvw
Sunday, August 8, 2010
BNP Manifesto – Economics Policy
The following paragraph has been copied from the British National Party's Economics manifesto:
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors. -
The opportunity to buy British utilities came about during Margaret Thatcher’s reign (1979 – 1990) as the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party. At the time the government was struggling to reduce the massive public debt (4% GDP), which was brought on by the recession during the early 80’s. Margaret Thatcher had to raise funds fast, so decided to put most of the government’s valuable assets up for sale to the highest bidder. The privatization policy also put an end to the governments ownership of British Airways, British Gas, British Petroleum (BP), British Telecom, British Rail, British Aerospace (now known as BAE Systems), Rolls Royce, Jaguar Cars, The Rover Group and many more.
A 2001 study by the Public Services International Research Unit, which is affiliated with trade unions and opposes privatisation, stated that
After some online research of the Electricity/Gas distribution companies that operate in the U.K, I found that 5 of the largest Electric/Gas suppliers are foreign. Also, 8 of the U.K’s largest Water/Sewerage companies are also from overseas.
Public water and sewerage companies that have been sold to foreign buyers:
Thames Water ---- Currently owned by Kemble Water Limited (MacQuarie Bank of Australia)
Anglian Water ---- Currently owned by Osprey Consortium of Canada
Bristol Water ---- Curently owned by Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. (Agbar) of Spain
Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water ---- Currently owned by Cascal, a subsidiary of Sembcorp Industries of Singapore
Cambridge Water Co. ---- Currently owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited (CKI) of Hong Kong
Veolia Water UK ---- Currently owned by Veolia Environnement S.A. of France
South East Water/Mid Kent Water ---- Currently owned by Hastings Diversified Utilities Fund Utilities Trust of Australia.
Public Electric/Gas suppliers that have been sold to foreign buyers:
London Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France
Npower ---- Owned by RWE of Germany
SWEB ---- Owned by EDF of France
Seaboard Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France
Powergen ---- Owned by E-On of Germany
Twenty years on, and with the LibLabCon parties playing musical chairs with the job of leading this country, we are back in a recession and have a massive national debt. So, the knee-jerk reaction from the previous government and the current Lib Dem/Conservative coalition is to sell off assets, rather than look at where money is being wasted. The British National Party has stated time and time again that the best way to save the tax payer Billions, is to pull out of the European Union, Illegal Wars, and stop overseas aid.
From recent news reports, we, the British public, will also lose the following assets to foreign buyers:
Channel Tunnel: British share (50%) to Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Macquarie of Australia, or Borealis and Global Infrastructure Partners of Canada
Royal Mail: Partial or complete sale to Deutsche Post of Germany, or TNT of Holland
The Port of Dover: To Nord-pas-de-Calais regional council, which also owns Calais.
Is there anything left?
- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors. -
The opportunity to buy British utilities came about during Margaret Thatcher’s reign (1979 – 1990) as the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party. At the time the government was struggling to reduce the massive public debt (4% GDP), which was brought on by the recession during the early 80’s. Margaret Thatcher had to raise funds fast, so decided to put most of the government’s valuable assets up for sale to the highest bidder. The privatization policy also put an end to the governments ownership of British Airways, British Gas, British Petroleum (BP), British Telecom, British Rail, British Aerospace (now known as BAE Systems), Rolls Royce, Jaguar Cars, The Rover Group and many more.
A 2001 study by the Public Services International Research Unit, which is affiliated with trade unions and opposes privatisation, stated that
- tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years,
- operating profits have more than doubled (+142%) in eight years,
- investments were reduced and
- public health was jeopardised through cut-offs for non-payment.
After some online research of the Electricity/Gas distribution companies that operate in the U.K, I found that 5 of the largest Electric/Gas suppliers are foreign. Also, 8 of the U.K’s largest Water/Sewerage companies are also from overseas.
Public water and sewerage companies that have been sold to foreign buyers:
Thames Water ---- Currently owned by Kemble Water Limited (MacQuarie Bank of Australia)
Anglian Water ---- Currently owned by Osprey Consortium of Canada
Bristol Water ---- Curently owned by Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. (Agbar) of Spain
Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water ---- Currently owned by Cascal, a subsidiary of Sembcorp Industries of Singapore
Cambridge Water Co. ---- Currently owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited (CKI) of Hong Kong
Veolia Water UK ---- Currently owned by Veolia Environnement S.A. of France
South East Water/Mid Kent Water ---- Currently owned by Hastings Diversified Utilities Fund Utilities Trust of Australia.
Public Electric/Gas suppliers that have been sold to foreign buyers:
London Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France
Npower ---- Owned by RWE of Germany
SWEB ---- Owned by EDF of France
Seaboard Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France
Powergen ---- Owned by E-On of Germany
Twenty years on, and with the LibLabCon parties playing musical chairs with the job of leading this country, we are back in a recession and have a massive national debt. So, the knee-jerk reaction from the previous government and the current Lib Dem/Conservative coalition is to sell off assets, rather than look at where money is being wasted. The British National Party has stated time and time again that the best way to save the tax payer Billions, is to pull out of the European Union, Illegal Wars, and stop overseas aid.
From recent news reports, we, the British public, will also lose the following assets to foreign buyers:
Channel Tunnel: British share (50%) to Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Macquarie of Australia, or Borealis and Global Infrastructure Partners of Canada
Royal Mail: Partial or complete sale to Deutsche Post of Germany, or TNT of Holland
The Port of Dover: To Nord-pas-de-Calais regional council, which also owns Calais.
Is there anything left?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
No Mosque at Ground Zero
By Newt Gingrich:
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.
Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia--Islamic law--upon all aspects of global society.
Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.
For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.
Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods--a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Sharia and Western Civilization
Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.
Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.
Creeping Sharia in the United States
In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.
However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.
The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:
In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.
In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.
More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.
Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.
We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.
Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.
In fact, they're partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.
Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia--Islamic law--upon all aspects of global society.
Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.
For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.
Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods--a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Sharia and Western Civilization
Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.
Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.
Creeping Sharia in the United States
In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.
However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.
The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:
In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.
In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.
More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.
Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.
We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.
Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.
In fact, they're partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)