SOTU 2019, and The Old Dominion blows up

The President gave an outstanding SOTU the other night, If you missed it, here it is. I know the feeling, I finally found enough time last night.

One of the things that is very rare is that he is very good with a set piece speech like this, while also being very good with the off the cuff ones, like his rallies. Very unusual for anyone to be good at both. PowerLine and others report that CBS and CNN snap polls found 76% approval.

He’s got a good message, a quite traditional pro-America message when he can get it through the media, who does their best to stifle it. The shutdown delay, and associated hype, probably helped him, as well.

One of the losers of the night was the Dems and their Mean Girl Caucus. It’s not a good look when Congresscritters (who are unpopular, all on their own) remind all and sundry of both the cool kids in junior high and the KKK. You know, like this.

And that is how they came off to me, and probably a lot of others. Sitting there stone-faced at the receipt of much good news about America, only cheering for themselves. As usual.

Then there is the mess the Dims have made in Virginia. Melanie Phillips explains it well.

But now Democrats have revealed a brutalised contempt for life itself.

In the Virginia assembly, Democrat delegate Kathy Tran proposed a law loosening restrictions on abortion in the final stages of pregnancy. She later confirmed that this would permit the termination of a pregnancy up to the very moment of delivery, in other words after labour had started.

The capacity to keep premature babies alive at an ever earlier stage in pregnancy has produced a fraught debate about the need to reduce the abortion time limit. But if a baby is in the process of being born, it is by definition capable of life. It is not longer a foetus; it is indisputably a baby on its way into the world. The suggestion that it might be killed at the very moment of its birth is grotesque – and it’s hard to understand how in practice this could be done without committing infanticide.

The Tran bill failed to pass, but not before it was defended by Virginia’s Democrat governor Ralph Northam, who is himself a paediatric neurologist. He told a WTOP radio show that Tran’s comments were “blown out of proportion” and said third-trimester abortions were rare.

These were done, he said, “in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.The infant would be delivered. The infant would be comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion”.

Northam was immediately accused of promoting infanticide, an accusation he vehemently denied. His spokeswoman said he had been “talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby”; his words were being taken out of context by Republicans, she said, and the notion that he would approve of killing infants was “disgusting.”

But what else would any such resuscitation “discussion” be about? Moreover, Tran’s proposed measure wasn’t about non-viable foetuses or catastrophic deformities or allowing terribly sick newborns to die. It was instead about third-trimester abortion, the deliberate extinction of any viable infant life, in circumstances where continuing with the pregnancy was deemed to threaten the mother’s life or her physical or mental health.

You already know my views, I could be persuaded that anyone espousing such views should be aborted themselves before they can hurt more kids. YMMV, but I’d be surprised.

In any case, the world blew up for Dims in Virginia, Melanie again.

So either Northam was being disingenuous, or he didn’t understand what Tran’s proposals actually were.

What then happened, however, graphically demonstrated how the Democrats are now being sucked into a woke vortex of their own making. It was revealed that in 1984 Northam had featured, on his medical-school yearbook page, a photograph of a man in blackface and a man in a KuKluxKlan hood. Northam immediately apologised for appearing in the picture; then said that neither person in the photograph was him; then he said he had put on blackface decades ago to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest.

All hell then broke loose and Northam’s future as Virginia’s governor – an office he won after accusing his opponents of racism – is now in jeopardy.

But Virginia’s Democrats then descended into yet another circle of politically correct hell. Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, admitted that he also had worn blackface in the 1980s. And Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who was poised to succeed Northam if he was hounded out of office, was suddenly accused by a fellow Democrat of sexual assault.

It gets better. The Atlantic reports:

“Fairfax has emphatically denied any wrongdoing and says he had a consensual sexual encounter with his accuser, Vanessa Tyson, a professor of politics at Scripps College. (He has also accusedLevar Stoney, a rival Democrat who is mayor of Richmond, of spreading the story. Stoney denies doing so.) This week, Tyson hired the same law firm that represented Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her in high school. Fairfax has also refused to resign.”

So now Virginia’s top three Democrat officials are simultaneously accused of advocating infanticide, displaying racial bigotry and committing sexual assault. […]

What’s happened in Virginia is that the cultural firebombs that the left repeatedly throws at its opponents over race, sexual violence and abortion have suddenly blown back at them and are setting their hair alight. As Rich Lowry writes, in the coming primary season no Democrat will be safe.

“Any lapses will be interpreted through the most hostile lens, made all the more brutal by the competition of a large field of candidates vying for the approval of a radicalized base. The Democrat nomination battle might as well be fought on the campus of Oberlin College and officiated by the director of the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”.

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Meanwhile, over a sickening culture of institutionalised dehumanisation no liberal progressive turns a hair. Why should they? They created it.

In other words, conservatives are fighting back, using the tools the Dims developed and have been using forever. It’s time and way past time.

The Democratic Party is brutalised and degraded, perhaps irrevocably. And millions of decent Americans are watching this political and cultural death spiral, and drawing their own horrified conclusions.

As that old Progressive Democrat Harry S Truman said, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Thank God.

Advertisements

Over the Parapet

While the Kavanaugh nomination hangs fire till we can reassure the lily-livered enough to not listen to those who wish the Republic ill, to do their plain duty. Perhaps we should pop our heads over the parapet enough to see what the cousins are saying.

You all know that I deal with conservative Britons every day. Their support, even with all their own troubles, which are immense, is steadfast. They understand, perhaps because our system is based on theirs, our travails completely, and they see the issues as clearly as we do. I find it most heartening. Old England is still there, although, like us, they have in large measure lost control of their government.

In the same way that we took heart from Brexit, they have taken heart from President Trump, and we will find, if we can drain our swamp, they will be doing their doughty best to resume their honored place amongst sovereign nations.

Dame Vera Lynn long ago, in a very dark place, while the Empire guarded Liberty alone, sang that “There will always be an England”. And indeed there always shall be.

“There’ll always be an England
And England shall be free”

And I’m convinced the Great Republic will also survive, to advance the cause of freedom and justice in concert with the cousins. No better outcome is possible under heaven. No other outcome is acceptable.

Another who completely understands what is going on right now is Melanie Phillips who wrote about America’s Revolutionary Moment.

Finally – finally! – a Republican has expressed appropriate fury, disgust and contempt for the way in which the Democratic Party turned Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court into a political lynching.

Christine Blasey Ford had accused Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted her when they were both teenagers in high school. She had taken her allegation, made for the first time after 36 years, to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Feinstein sat on it for six weeks until virtually the last moment in the Senate’s consideration of Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Having heard both Ford’s accusation and Kavanaugh’s emotional and angry response at yesterday’s hearing, a scarcely less emotional and angry Senator Lyndsey Graham could contain himself no longer and denounced the whole circus as “the most unethical sham” during his entire time in politics (view this here).

He accused the Democrats of having boasted they would destroy Kavanaugh’s life in order to hold his Supreme Court seat open in the hope they would win the presidency in 2020.

“If you really wanted to know the truth”, he erupted at the Democrats, “you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy. Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham. That you knew about it and you held it! You had no intention of protecting Dr Ford! None! She’s as much of a victim as you are [pointing at Kavanaugh]. God I hate to say it ’cause these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this: you’re looking for fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend… Would you say you’ve been through hell?”

KAVANAUGH: “I’ve been through hell and then some”.

GRAHAM:”This is not a job interview. This is hell.”

Ford’s testimony garnered widespread sympathy. Many have concluded she was sincere and that she probably did experience a traumatic sexual encounter. The question, though, is whether her assailant was Brett Kavanaugh or someone else, especially given the many contradictions and lacunae in her account. Those concerned about this affair are not seeking to judge Ford herself. The concerns, and they could hardly be more grave, are about an abuse of process by the Democratic party which has been engaged in character assassination on the basis of wholly uncorroborated and flaky claims.

To this travesty of justice and decency must also be added a travesty of journalism. The New Yorker decided to say #MeToo to this lynching. Its reporters, Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer, suddenly produced one Deborah Ramirez, who claimed Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a drunken party in their freshman year at Yale. Kavanaugh says forcefully that this didn’t happen and that the claim is a smear.

Barring something very unlikely, Kavanaugh will be confirmed. And if we, the people of the United States are worthy of the title, November 6, 2018, will mark the continued and markéd decline of what has become an obscene parody of a political party. You all know, I’m no particular fan of the Republican party, I find it an often distasteful collection of people mostly interested in their own wallets.

But at this juncture, that is a minor matter. The Democratic Party has sold itself to gain power and completely disrupt the governing scheme that the founders bequeathed us. Ben Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention told a person inquiring what they had come up with:

“A Republic,

If you can keep it”

A few years before, in a dark time, another patriot wrote some words that are again applicable.

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Two days later, the Continental Army took Trenton, starting the American tradition of killing our enemies on Christmas day. This is not a time when we need to kill our enemies, but it is time to decisively defeat them. That is what the midterm elections this year are for.

Growing out of Suicide

Melanie Phillips had an excellent post yesterday, dealing with the apparent suicide of the west. Most of it is an excerpt of her book, The World Turned Upside Down: the Global Battle over God, Truth and Power. She says, and I agree that it is even more pertinent now. Here are a few excerpts…

Historical statues are being toppled in America; snarling, violent anti-fascists mirror the behaviour they are supposedly against; Britain’s Conservative Government is to enforce hate-speech guidelines which are as contestable as they are subjective. As we watch western societies buckling under the bizarre combination of an apparently extreme concern to protect other people’s feelings with an extreme attempt to suppress other people’s opinions, many of us feel utter bewilderment. How can so many people who are ostensibly devoted to reason and freedom be behaving so irrationally and oppressively? […]

THE DISENCHANTMENT OF REASON

The Enlightenment is consuming its own progeny. In the west, the culture of reason is dying, brought down by a loss of faith in progress and in the rationality that underpinned it. The replacement of objective truth by subjective experience has caused science itself to turn into a branch of unreason, underpinning the loss of rational discourse as evidence is hijacked by ideology.

The age of reason was supposed to end all the ills in the world. Since these were held to derive from the suppression by religion of the defining characteristic of the human race, the intellect, it was assumed that once exposed to the full power of the mind these ills would fade away. But just like every other millenarian fantasy, thisbrave new world failed to materialise. War, bigotry and tyranny did not come to an end. Materialism and science were heavily implicated in the two greatest tyrannies of the 20th century. Modernity lost its shine. Technology created anomie. Progress was a threat to the planet. Mankind was viewed as a pollutant. The Enlightenment project was yet another utopia that had failed.

Yet at the same time, any perspective that was not scientific was regarded as illegitimate. Religion and reason were held to be intrinsically incompatible. But this was a fundamental and fatal error. It was religion which gave the world the concepts of progress and reason in the first place. When Nietzsche declared that God was dead, reason was killed off alongside him as Nietzsche knew only too well. Those who wanted science to destroy religion didn’t realise that destroying religion would in turn destroy science. Thus modernity is in danger of disappearing up its own fundament. […]

She and I acknowledge that Britain tends considerably more moderate than Europe, but

If the Jacobins’ Committee of Public Safety had been organised by Max Weber it would have looked just like the European Commission. The EU project claims higher legitimacy than individual member democracies because it embodies ‘universal’ values which cannot be gainsaid. Christian codes of moral order are illegitimate; the ‘universal’ and unchallengeable moral, social and ideological foundations of the EU include gay rights, feminism and multiculturalism. […]

Gottfried cites the Italian historian Augusto del Noce, who in 1977 detected totalitarianism in the ‘scientific’ management of society, the discrediting of traditional authority and the progress of a secular managerialism which attempted to re-code human nature itself. Behind this lay a ‘war against all forms of knowing that are not deemed as scientific’. That, however negated science and reason by turning them into the instruments of ideology. Science was thereby reduced to superstition or a ‘certification wrapped in a mystery’ and attached to a group of privileged power-bearers. The natural course in mass democracy, he wrote, was ‘a process that begins with the loss of the Greek discovery of morality and ends with the negation of philosophic reason and the persecution of dissidents’. […]

Not only is the west loosening its own grip on reason and modernity, but it is also failing to hold the line against those who are waging an explicit war against them from without. Instead of fighting off the encroachment of Islamic obscurantism — part of the Islamist onslaught aimed at conquering the free world for Islam — the west is embracing it as if it has a cultural death wish.

In part, this is the misguided realpolitik of appeasement; but more deeply, it is once again the complete loss of moral and cultural bearings through multiculturalism and ‘victim culture’, along with the acting out of collective western guilt as an act of expiation to bring about peace on earth – as a result of which truth and justice are turned on their heads.

I agree with all that, and yet a few weeks ago I wrote about that Londoner who charged barehanded at three knife wielding terrorists, shouting, “F*ck you, I’m Millwall“. None of that fits him. Nor does much of it fit me, or many others in our generation. My friend, Mister Mac, wrote about how he grew into it, and it flooded me with memories, not of the Navy, but of a boy trying to do a man’s job. A bit:

When you are seventeen and the whole world is just outside of you front door, you can be a little anxious to get started. Some kids will go off to college, some will go to work in a factory or mill, and some kids find themselves drawn to something more adventurous. In my case, that was the military and more specifically, the Navy.

I convinced my parents to sign the permission slip and without much real thought on my part (other than the foreign ports I would hopefully see) I raised my right hand and said a bunch of words. At seventeen, I honestly had very little idea what the words meant or what I was obligating myself for. As we were lining up to say them at the Navy office, I seem to remember a serious feeling coming over the whole proceeding. Up until that moment, the kids that were in the room with me had been typical kids just kind of joking and being “brave”. Then we all said the words together…

“I… (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Yep. Seventeen years old and I just took an oath to support and defend a document I had barely read in school and understood even less. I was supposed to defend it against all enemies both foreign and domestic (whatever that meant) and I was going to obey the orders of a guy I have never met in person and a bunch of men and women who I had not yet met.

What was I thinking? I was only seventeen. I had only shot a gun a few times before and certainly had never shot at another human being. And orders? Holy cow, my Dad and I used to fight like two prize fighters over the stupidest stuff. Now I had to willingly follow the orders of some guy I hardly knew?

But I grew into it. […]

I just pray as I look around the country now that enough young people will still be willing to raise their right hands and give themselves and the country a chance to grow into an even better place than when my generation were in charge. This modern Antifa movement is kind of frightening to me. Many of these kids are seventeen too and maybe aren’t sure what it means to attack your own country. There is a word for that: Treason

I do the same, and as I look around from Mt Greybeard, I wonder if Mac isn’t on to something. He, and I, and most of those of our generation got our butts shoved out (actually, we couldn’t wait) to succeed or fail (often) on our own. We were raised to take responsibility, and many of our teachers had taken responsibility for putting Hitler and Tojo in the ground. Hard to have more responsibility than that when you’re 20 odd years old. But I wonder if because we wanted our kids to have it easier than we did, we didn’t shirk that duty, and let them continue on as spoiled fourth graders, instead of forcing them to grow, and take responsibility for themselves. I wonder how the world would be different if the parents of those (probably somewhat apocryphal) 30-year-old kids, living in their mother’s basement got tossed out to sink or swim.

I don’t know, maybe it’s too late, but I bet it would make quite a difference. Maybe there is still time for them to “Grow into it”.

 

SLOPPY WORDS BUT THE SUBSTANCE WAS TRUE

sweden-riots-840x469Melanie Phillips wrote about the comments Trump made in his speech last week about Sweden. Here’s a bit

It turns out he’d been talking about a TV documentary on this subject to which he’d seen a reference the previous evening. This was a report by Ami Horowitz which said there had been a surge of gun violence and rape once Sweden began its “open door” policy towards immigrants, that the government had “gone out of its way to try to cover up some of these problems” and that the country now had Muslim “no-go zones” ruled by sharia law.

That report itself was criticised for being distorted. Swedish politicians rushed to state that such problems were simply unknown. The city of Malmo was a model of multicultural harmony. One of the police officers interviewed by Horowitz said their comments had been taken out of context. “He is a madman.” And so on.

Just a few hours later, violence erupted in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby after a mob of around 30 began attacking officers with rocks and setting fire to cars. But Trump had not been exercising metaphysical powers of prophecy. Both he and Ami Horowitz were accurately reflecting Swedish reality, as has been steadily reported over many years despite attempts by the Swedish authorities to suppress such information.

Yeah, well, imagine that. Many, many of us have been saying much the same thing about Sweden for years. But the Swedish government has its head so thoroughly buried in the sand that they probably couldn’t do anything if they wanted to, which they don’t. The sad fact of it is that to them, and their counterparts all across Europe, as well as many in the United States, their narrative is far more important than the safety of their citizens.

Hell of a way to run a railroad, in my opinion, but there we are.

His supporters appear to be discounting the falsehoods or inaccuracies in his loose and careless talk because they have decided he is telling the truth about the stuff that actually matters and they can work out perfectly well what he is saying. The distinction they appear to be making is not between truth and falsehood but between Trump’s sloppy inaccuracies or boastful exaggeration on the one hand, which they don’t think are that important, and on the other hand the lies or omissions by the mainstream media, which they think matter a great deal.

That’s pretty much true, I expect, and I too wish he would be a bit more careful with his accuracy. But you know, for all that he does tend to bloviate a bit, what he says, is not untrue, merely a bit opaque, and if you are like us, people who care more about the results than the words it is not all that difficult to figure out. And in fact, he sticks far closer to the truth than, say, Obama, ever did. The difference is that the PC establishment, European elites, and the news media (look, a threepeat!) are looking for gotchas, and anybody speaking mostly without a script, are going to make them. Melanie is correct, though, I don’t think many of us, who are his boss, really care, as long as we get results.

Be that as it may, Trump needs to be far more careful about how he talks. Words matter, and it is simply not on for the President of the United States to make comments which are so carelessly inaccurate. It allows his enemies to paint him as a liar …

via Sloppy words but the substance was true | MelaniePhillips.com

Maybe, but I’m convinced that they would paint him as a liar if he said the sky is blue. I don’t condone falsehood at any time, but that is not really what this is about, is it?

Controversy Begets Publicity; Londonistan Edition

imagesSo, Melanie Phillips was a bit hurt by the response from Pam Geller and Robert Spencer the other day to her article. OK, I can understand that but, many of us agreed with Pam this time.

Yes, Melanie was very lonely, as a Brit decrying the order, and yes, she is a very lonely voice in the wilderness. But that is in some measure the point. We have to work with the tools we have. Would a few thousand people like Melanie Phillips protesting the ban in streets be better? Yep, it sure would. But I didn’t see it. In fact, sympathetic British people, who pay attention to the American scene as well, told me they had heard nothing about it, until this bit of shouting erupted across the blogosphere. It seems, that Melanie’s piece was the only piece noting the ban in Britain. When the media blackout gets that bad, you need any sort of publicity you can get. So, if it accomplished nothing else, the yelling at each other woke a few more up.

About the EDL, my understanding is that they have been thoroughly demonized in the UK. That’s too bad. I suspect they are a flawed instrument.

So What?

Abraham Lincoln was a racist, yes he was, look it up. And that doesn’t diminish, in fact I think it heightens his accomplishment of freeing the slaves. If the British people don’t get up on their back  legs and take their country back from their brand of statist politicians, it’s done. over. finis. If you don’t like the leadership of the EDL, change it, start another group, whatever. But I’ll say this, from what we see of it over here, which granted isn’t all inclusive, but I’ll bet your information isn’t all that much better, it really doesn’t look all that bad.

And there is something else, as Jess has been known to remind us, we are the descendants of rebels over here, and we learned a lot. One of those lessons, and it has been very strongly reinforced in the last decade is this: You believe the media at your own peril. The media is not your friend, they are the enemy of freedom, with very few exceptions

Here’s Melanie

I am rubbing my eyes at the hysterical responses to my blog post on the British government’s banning order against anti-jihadi activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. People will have to read what I wrote, alongside  the attacks on me by Ms Geller and Mr Spencer, to decide for themselves whether their responses were proportionate — or could even be considered an accurate or fair representation of what I wrote.

Unlike the two of them, I have no wish to indulge in such ad hominem  — and counter productive – vitriol. I would just make the following points.

First, you would hardly think from their reaction that I actuallyopposed – and in the strongest terms – the order banning them from Britain. Furthermore, I spoke of them merely as ‘anti-jihadis’ and gave unambiguous credit to Robert Spencer’s scrupulous scholarship. The only aspect on which I said in this piece that I parted company with them was over their endorsement of

‘groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.’

I did not call the EDL racist or neo-Nazi. I do, however, believe it contains thuggish elements.

Its leader, ‘Tommy Robinson’, has criminal convictions for assault and football hooliganism.

He is a former member of the unquestionably racist British National Party. Some members of the EDL have been pictured making Nazi salutes at rallies. The EDL exploits the very real threat of jihad, as well as the often violent attacks against its own members, to mask its own demonstrably yobbish behaviour. You can see examples of such behavior, throwing bottles at the police,here or here, where Tommy Robinson decided to go on a bender in Luton and started gratuitously throwing missiles at the police from a distance, boasting he would ‘hit a police officer on the … head’.

Continue reading A hysterical and ignorant response | Melanie Phillips.

My advice to all parties, not that any of them give a damn what I think, is this. Yes, we are all on the same side. Melanie is a very rare Brit for standing up for this, and yes Pam can be a bit strident but, you know we need both. Even this controversy, which is true from both sides and is possibly hurtful to the main actors has functioned to bring notice to the cause, which we need.

I haven’t the final answer, and I doubt anybody does. I am quite sure that we need Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Melanie Phillips, and yes we need Tommy Robinson, too. He may not be our dream date for the freedom prom, but I think it behooves us to dance with the one who brung us. And Tommy is out there, never claiming to be a perfect instrument, doing his best, as he sees it, for his country.

That’s not really so bad, is it?

 

EDL or Sharia? Really?

English: Moshe Yaalon, Former IDF chief of sta...

English: Moshe Yaalon, Former IDF chief of staff, and blogger pamela geller. עברית: משה (בוגי) יעלון ופמלה גלר (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, we seem to have ourselves a bit of controversy. You see the EDL is doing a tribute to the soldier beheaded in Woolwich for Armed Forces day. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were going to join them. In a remarkably obtuse move (even for a British governmentHome Secretary Teresa May has made Britain look at best foolish, and in truth far worse than that. You see they decided to forbid entry to Geller and Spencer because, I don’t know, they aren’t respectful enough to our Islamist masters or something.

In what is remarkably obtuse itself Melanie Phillips, takes the Home secretary to task, here

By banning from the country as extremists the American anti-jihadis Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Home Secretary Teresa May has not only made herself look ridiculous but has sent the enemies of the United Kingdom the message that they have it on the run.

I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.

The result has been a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer whose scholarship in itself is scrupulous. It has also split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.

Nevertheless, the decision to ban this duo from Britain is unjustified, oppressive and comes perilously close to lining up the British government alongside those who wish to silence defenders of the west against the jihad, making a total mockery of Britain’s understanding of just who presents a danger to the state.

Continue reading The British government’s jihad against free thought

In fine, Ms Phillips seems to be saying that the EDL ain’t got no class, and talks funny, didn’t go to Oxford, and all in all wouldn’t be welcome in my parlor. Well, I can sympathize, and further I would bet that John Hancock had similar things to say about Sam Adams’ buddies that threw that tea in Boston Harbor. You see liberty is a funny proposition, it appeals to people who you may not want to take home for dinner. That’s OK, they probably don’t want to have dinner with you either, but, if you are working for the same thing, it is a good idea to work together, rather than against each other

Pam Geller had this to say

With friends like Melanie Phillips, who needs enemies? Articulate and useless.

Melanie Phillips writes in her latest column, entitled The British government’s jihad against free thought, “I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.”

What “other groups” is she talking about? Who would Phillips have fight this war? What does she suggest? And what is the elitist contempt for the EDL? I was there when they were formed as a result of vicious epithets and abuse being hurled at returning soldiers by devout Muslims. The rise of the EDL was a natural response, an organic repulsion to a hatred, to a violent movement bent on the destruction of our way of life.

I have monitored the group for the past four years. Are they perfect? Of course not, and I have expressed concerns in the past (here andhere), and they do their best to purge their ranks of problems, but their heart is in the right place. I understand there is a class system still in Britain and these blokes are a bit rough round the edges and less than cultured, but so what? Who does Phillips think is going to fight this war? Dandies?

What’s her answer, then? Seriously. The EDL is thuggish? I see. That reeks of elitism. These boys are a bit dirty and they don’t do high tea at 4. But I know they have no racist agenda, and far from being neo-Nazis, they’re one of the most (if not the most) pro-Israel groups in Britain. They’ve reached out to Jews, Sikhs, women, gays and others. They oppose violence and do not provoke it; they just fight back when attacked. Phillips ought to back up her taint with fact. I can’t see past her argument. I want proof, Melanie. I have seen what they done to me. And Spencer. And every other effective counter jihadist. The lies, the libel. I want proof, Melanie. We live in a day and age where video, iphones, etc. make documenting such accusations easy. Why not them?
I agree with her. If you are going to fight for freedom, you don’t pick your allies by their accent. Churchill was correct when he said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he would at least make positive reference to the Devil in the house.
We’ll let Ms Geller sum this up I think, because, like always, if you are supporting freedom, you will find the American people a source of strength, if you are waging a class war as well not so much. I like and admire Melanie Phillips but she’s wrong here and Pam Geller is right.
But I am an American. We don’t have social classes here. Anyone who works for the freedom of speech and equality of rights of all people, and rejects the genuine thuggishness and authoritarianism of the Left and its Islamic supremacist allies, is A-OK with me.
%d bloggers like this: