Posts Tagged ‘Britain’

This is a truck driver’s dashcam as he drives through a mob – a mob that it should be noted is trying to pull his truck open and climb in so they can get to England.

A news report from the same place in Calais:

You won’t see any of those “widows and orphans” that Obama’s always crying about.  This is a swarm of fighting-age males.

At around the 3:30 mark in the Channel 4 video, the reporter notes that the mob is also bringing with scabies infections.  Wonderful.

Another truck attack, with some interesting commentary… and again, virtually no women or children to be seen:

The commenter there points out that the welfare system of Britain is attracting them.

Climate scientists have discovered a new stage in the scientific method.

1. Make observation
2. Ask a question
3. Develop hypothesis
4. Conduct experiment to test hypothesis
5. Observe results
6. Conclusions
7. Go back to step 5 and adjust data until you get the answers you want
8. Use government authority to prosecute anyone who questions your conclusions and demands

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

If the conclusions were so self-evident, it wouldn’t be necessary to go after dissenters.  There are anti-vaccination advocates throughout Hollywood and the “crunchy” parent circles, something which easily and simply does cause real, immediate harm by rendering the population more susceptible to diseases (one quick example).  No one goes after them… but of course the point isn’t science for the global warmers, the point is internationalist redistribution of wealth and resources – watermelon environmentalism.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.S. government says it will begin using the term “sexual rights” in discussions of human rights and global development.

Not really sure I have much on that one.  I’m sure it will turn into more lectures to Kenyans about how they should run their country.

“On one level, it’s symbolic. It also sends a signal to the global community that sexual and reproductive health and rights are a part of the global development agenda,” Serra Sippel, the center’s president, told The Associated Press. She said it follows “huge strides” made under the Obama administration on LGBT issues.

Yup, now instead of LGBT people in Iraq and Syria hanging out in the closet, they’re being thrown off of roofs.  Real improvement.

Speaking at a meeting of the U.N. women’s agency Tuesday, Richard Erdman, a deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the United States would use the term “sexual rights” for those that are not legally binding.

“Sexual rights are not human rights, and they are not enshrined in international human rights law; our use of this term does not reflect a view that they are part of customary international law,” he said. “It is, however, a critical expression of our support for the rights and dignity of all individuals regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Nevertheless, Sippel described the U.S. decision as “the United States catching up with the rest of the world.”

Not legally binding, not considered human rights, but it’s an expression of support that will agitate a lot of the rest of the world – a lot of the world that the US is not “catching up with” – because most of the world is not very LGBT friendly.  Yay for the SJW finger-wagging.  It will grate on allies and will not make a whit of difference to enemies.

If the objective was to protect the lives of LGBT people in other nations because it were legally binding – say, pushing for nations to not execute gays just because they’re gay – that’d be something else.  Or maybe even a demand to just start with not executing women suspected of adultery, or executing rape victims as adulteresses – those would all be initiatives easy to support  It would be a movement of support for human life.  This is just a slow cultural leftist push designed to devalue traditional structures in other nations, to the point that maybe those pushing for it don’t know what the activists are really having them push for.

Rights don’t come from a UN declaration, either, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the statist mind.

And finally, via ZeroHedge – irony…

orwell irony

Now that the shutdown’s done and the intentional failure of Obamacare has been shoved onto the citizenry, it’s time to bring in some more Democrat voters to ensure the thousand-year reign of the left will not be stymied.

From Reuters:

“Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform,” he told the Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network Univision.

From Breitbart:

“[I]n the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further,” Obama stated. Historically, “balanced” has been code for tax increases.

Obama then pushed on to immigration reform: “Number two. We should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system.” Naturally, he blamed the Republican House for stalling his preferred immigration bill.

They also note the Farm Bill is on the agenda, which is interesting because it tends to be just about farm subsidies and food stamps.

Obama’s push for amnesty is considered the “smart play” because it comes as opposition is weak from opposing his dictates in Obamacare.  He keeps throwing things out there at a pace so fast that no one can keep up with it.  News junkies struggle to keep up, and the average Joe who has a life and things to do is going to be asking “what?  They’re doing this again?”

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

For those who’ve missed it, the patron government of one major illegal alien group has been out helping its invading citizens break US laws, and other illegal alien activist groups have been getting more vocal in demanding that they be allowed to take your stuff and invade your country and you need to shut up and take it.

…many say, recent weeks have seen activists use chains and pipes to tie themselves to the tires of buses that carry immigrants slated for deportation to court, block traffic on Capitol Hill and get arrested, surround Tucson police when they targeted two immigrants during a traffic stop, and chain themselves and block the entrance of a federal detention center.

More such actions, they vow, are coming.

“It’s absolutely out of frustration and impatience,” said Marisa Franco, campaign organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which helped coordinate some of the more provocative actions. “Immigrant communities who are losing 1,100 loved ones every day to deportation cannot wait for Congress to end its political games or for the President to rediscover his moral compass,” she added.

“The people will take power back into their own hands and set a true example of leadership that the Beltway will have to follow,” Franco vowed.

Criminals being criminals are mad because they broke the law and are getting caught and punished.  Those 1,100 “loved ones” are criminals who broke laws and are being removed.  That there is an entire racist organization that exists solely to try to break the will of the US in enforcing its own immigration laws, to get American citizens and legal aliens to surrender to home invader illegals, is absurd.

To give contrast to this, the immigration enforcement of Europe from the lefty government of declining Britain has been taking this form recently:

illegal immigration britain van

A quote from Mark Harper, Britain’s Immigration minister:

“I don’t see any problem with saying to people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom they can’t be here anymore,” he told BBC Question.

They’re also going out and sending messages to illegals to let them know to leave or they will be arrested.

Officials have sent messages to almost 40,000 people they suspect of not having a right to be in the UK, instructing them to contact border officials to discuss their immigration status.

Meanwhile, in the US, our government prepares to tell us that illegal aliens have more right to our nation than we do.  And this time it’s again the Ruling Class against the Country Class, as business leaders who pretend to be on the right are now out to fight anyone who believes in borders and laws.

According to the Wall Street Journal, groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are thinking about “backing challengers to tea-party conservatives in GOP primaries, increasing political engagement with centrist Republicans.” The Chamber of Commerce is reportedly “researching” what races they can influence in GOP primaries “in hopes of replacing tea-party conservatives with more business-friendly pragmatists” who would include support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Even before the government shutdown and the fight over defunding Obamacare, business groups “pressing for an immigration overhaul were venting frustration that the full House has been unwilling to consider any immigration legislation.” Reportedly, “several business executives said they were counting on establishment GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to move immigration and future fiscal legislation.”

They don’t care about the nation, they care about cheap labor.  They’re short-sighted and stupid and don’t care that the illegal aliens they import will result in more Democrat-leftist ideologues in business, more regulations and government force against business, because they think they’ll get a seat at the table and their cronyism with politicians will save them.

They don’t listen when Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters says she wants to take over their companies – to destroy oil companies.  They don’t listen when Obama says energy prices will skyrocket – to destroy the coal industry.  They don’t pay attention when Obama and like politicians say they want single payer – to destroy the insurance business.  Many of the highest-ups of the companies live wealthy enough not to care and thus are oblivious that things can happen to them, and the rest of them are just fodder anyway.

Businessmen at high levels still think they’re playing the same old game with conventional crooked politicians instead of ideologically-driven leftist radicals.  They don’t realize they’re the useful idiots helping to plot their own demise.

Thank You, Jeremy Clarkson

Posted: February 20, 2013 by ShortTimer in Humor, Media
Tags: ,

I knew about this incident:

jeremy clarkson no piers morgan

But didn’t realize that Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear fame) had also punched snotty liar anti-2A Brit poof Piers Morgan in the face.  Thank you, Jeremy Clarkson.

jeremy clarkson piers morgan fb post

Update: Jeremy Clarkson told the story here… I think he may only be apologetic about it in this video as part of a characteristic British politeness.

Makes you want to watch some Top Gear…

No, the other guys aren’t that short… Clarkson is 6’5″.  Makes the idea of a punch to Piers Morgan’s smug face that much more satisfying.

From the UK Sun:

A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Financially, they as individuals can see what’s in their best interest.  It’s in their best interest to take from the taxpayer.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.

They’re just a symptom.  The disease is the governmental policies that enable and support them.

Consider the American Welfare Cliff:

welfare cliffThe blue is take-home wages after taxes, and the rest are handouts from various sources.  There are greater rewards to less work.  In Britain, it’s become so bad that there are greater rewards for no work at all.

The welfare-taker is just exploiting a system that’s set up for exploitation.  It works the same in the US.  The working stiff is busting her butt for 8-10 hours a day, while the welfare-taker is at home on his butt playing Xbox for 8-10 hours a day, then going out to party at night.  He doesn’t have bills to worry about, as they’re all paid for by people who are working.  She does have to worry about bills.  He has an entire political party dedicated to telling him that he’s downtrodden and oppressed, and that only they, who give him free stuff, will help him.  She’s got a choice between two parties – one that says they support her, but that takes her money and gives it to the welfare-taker, and the other that “compromises” because they don’t want to look like meanies… and so mostly does the same thing.

The welfare-taker (or zero-liability voter, as Andrew Wilkow likes to call them) is voting himself largesse from the public treasury, and one party wholly supports him – because they know they have his vote for as long as they give him plunder from other citizens.  The working stiff has her tax money diverted from legitimate functions of government (national defense, post roads, etc.) and sent to the welfare-taker.

At some point, solely looking at the bottom line, it becomes clear that one is the winner – having their life provided for by the state, and one is the loser – being taxed by the state to provide for others they have no obligation to.  In the long run, the system implodes.  In the short term, the politician who provides welfare is the one who gets benefits – being able to demonize those who oppose welfare as “heartless”, directly giving handouts to people to pay for support, and they get the constant reassurance that their meddling is “necessary” because they are the only ones who can “save” the little people.  It’s Munchausen by proxy on a massive scale.  And it serves the interest of the politicians’ Curley Effect.

Drudge has been on the ball on this.  That he’s on the ball isn’t really that big of a surprise, but that he’s recognized how important the right to keep and bear arms and the attempts to disarm the citizen both are is a testament to good journalism.

Joe Biden’s still talking about 19 executive actions or 19 executive orders.  Which is about the same as saying “the president will take unilateral executive action against the right to free speech and establish speech controls and speech registration for those who want to exercise the right for what we say its intended purpose was”, and every bit as chilling.

The Washington Examiner says Obama’s going to surround himself with children in order to tug at heartstrings and get people do disarm the Jews once and for all for the good of the children.  Did I say the Jews?  I meant the freedmen blacks.  Did I say the blacks?  I meant the American Indian tribes.  Did I say the Amerind tribes?  I meant the issei and nisei Japanese.  Wait, am I just listing minorities who’ve been oppressed by government?


Meanwhile, the evil Newt Gingrich, with a heart two sizes two small and filled with spiders; who hates children and all the Whos in Whoville, suggests that if gun control works, why not meet in Chicago?  He must hate children to say things like that.

And from Politico, CNN’s president supports Piers Morgan’s assault on the Constitution and the natural rights of man.  Yes, you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself because some sniveling twerp who as Daily Mirror editor fabricated a story to implicate British troops and was kicked out of his job because of it.  He’s a propagandist for terrorists, and a willing insurgent against his own nation.  He didn’t stand for any noble principle by lying about Tommy Atkins; and he’s not now.  He has been receiving more ratings by being a swaggering douchenozzle, but so what?  Jersey Shore did the same thing for several seasons, and then never engaged in any campaigns against the Constitution.

Of course, this is all about saving the children.  And there’s no better representative of that desire to save children than Joe Biden’s crack team of anti-Constitution thugs.  And no smattering of would-be tyrants is complete without tyrannical offspring – in the case of Biden’s task force advisor officer Thomas Nee, whose son spent 9 months in prison for planning a school shooting using his father’s police handgun.

President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is a member of Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control task force, which was created by President Obama in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Nee’s son, Joseph Nee, was convicted in 2008 for planning to commit mass murder of students and teachers at Marshfield High School in Massachusetts, similar to that of Columbine in 1999. After spending nine months in prison, Nee’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.

But not all the news is bad, horrible, insulting death of the republic stuff.

The NRA, which represents law-abiding gun owners by virtue of the fact that they voluntarily pay for their representation, has had an influx of over 250,000 members since the murders in Connecticut prompted anti-rights politicians to dance in the blood of children.

Sentator Rand Paul is a very sharp guy, and opposes what Obama and his ilk are doing.

”I’m against having a king,” said the Senator.  ”I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or monarch.”

Bypassing Congress is an aggressive method of ruling without representation.  It’s supposed to be difficult to force sweeping national agendas upon a free people.  The modern appetite for swift, “efficient,” all-powerful centralized government is a denial of that principle.  It’s tough to find issues where Rand Paul agrees with, say, Harry Reid, isn’t it?  Good.  That difficulty defines the boundaries of what the federal government is supposed to be doing.  Battles over the extension of those boundaries should be nice and vicious.  The American people deserve no less.

An excellent article by David Kopel.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.

Similar to the threats of ammunition taxes, restrictions, shipping bans, etc., that are going on today.  Same gun control plans, same tyrannical objectives.

The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.

At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.

On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.

Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave.

Someone disarming you who doesn’t honor their word?  Naw, never happened before!

Contrast Massachusetts as a defender of liberty in the 1700s in the whole article (which I recommend reading) with anti-rights, pro-control Massachusetts of today.

To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.

minuteman statue concord