Defend freedom and reason – which make us truly human

Melanie Phillips urges British conservatives to learn from John Howard and Tony Abbott:

The great battles today are not between left and right. They are between morality and nihilism, truth and lies, justice and injustice, freedom and totalitarianism, and Judeo-Christian values and the would-be destroyers of the West both within and without.

If conservatives are not on the right side of all these touchstone issues, then what is the point of conservatives at all? Why should anyone vote for them if they are merely left-wing wannabes? If people want utopia and the repression that inevitably follows its pursuit, the party to vote for is Labour: it does it so much better.

The Vilest of Creatures are not the Jews, but those who wish to destroy them:

To find journalist-ideologue John Pilger ranting about “the criminality of the Israeli state” and “the murderous, racist toll of Zionism” is all too routine. (Hat tip Oliver Kamm.) What’s new is this: Pilger trots out “the expatriate Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon” as a representative good Jew, emblematic of “the heroes of Israel” and “the moral courage of Israeli dissidents.” Either Pilger is fool enough to be unaware of Atzmon’s vicious anti-Jewish bigotry, or he has consciously praised an apologist for the Third Reich, who has declared: “One of the things that happened to us was that stupidly we interpreted the Nazi defeat as a vindication of the Jewish ideology and the Jewish people.”

And: “Carpet bombing and total erasure of populated areas that is so trendy amongst Israeli military and politicians (as well as Anglo-Americans) has never been a Nazi tactic or strategy.”  More from Harry’s

Socialism, like the burka, is a package deal…

Mark Steyn: The Right, er, Left

Today’s quote:  the moonbat slogan “Yes we can” sounds just like the sheep that bleat “Four legs good, two legs bad” in Animal Farm. 


In Europe today, even the right is left, far left.

Europe’s politicians are contaminated by a desire to redistribute, and to regulate, to keep large constituencies of non-productive voters happy.

In France, the flamboyant Nicolas Sarkozy was elected to restore law and order. You may have noticed, that his policies are an abject failure when it comes to dealing with what he himself calls racaille, riffraff, rabble or low-class scum:  the Muslim “youths” who burn an average of a 100 cars a day.

The question we need to ask is why? What makes Europe’s politicians so impotent and ineffective against an aggressive, militant Moslem proletariat ? 

Much of the problem lies in their own way of thinking, fostered by years of Socialist/Marxist indoctrination:  there is hardly anyone among Europe’s politicians who would   trust citizens with weapons or self-defense, and Sarkozy is not only one of them, he goes even further:

Disarm Yourself for Self Defense

sarkoterreurA quote from French Conservative presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006

I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

What Europeans don’t understand

Unfortunately, the police and judiciary in France are inefficient. Moreover, through disastrous immigration, multicultural and political correctness policies and programmes, the French government is reverting its public to a ‘state of nature’. And in a state of nature, where struggle is endemic, not owning a gun can be a veritable death sentence.

What the framers of the US constitution DID understand very well was that all freedoms must be continually fought for by those that desire them. That is why the second amendment (the right to own guns) is second only to the first amendment (the right to free speech). Had the framers known it would become such a problem hundreds of years later they might have reconsidered it and put it first instead of second.

What did Hitler do before he exterminated the Jews? He took away their guns. Only a true idiot/totalitarian wannabe with no regard for the facts can honestly advocate that any government should prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns. America has, in the past, always had higher crime rates than Europe. In the 19th Century, when neither New York or London had any gun control laws New York still had more murders than London. America, to the extent that it is violent it is violent because it has violent people. Guns are inanimate objects with no moral bearing. They are not a cause of violence anymore than bats or bottles or rocks or cars or knives or metal pipes are. There are countries with higher gun ownership rates than the that US have less violence(Switzerland, Israel, Canada). Britain saw its murder and crime rates INCREASE after its gun bans were passed. Sarkozy, and his Euro-dhimmi colleagues, are advocating  policies which are those of a totalitarian state.

If you thought the US was protected from this madness, you are wrong:

The Audacity of Self-defense

* by Debra J. Saunders

                      Revisiting the racist “wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor 

The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: “Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.”

For eight years, Democrats attacked the Bush administration for giving short shrift to personal liberties. As Obama wrote in “Audacity,” the Bush picks “showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy and checks on executive power.”

 Now the Obama pick for the Supreme Courtcan’t think of a right to defend yourself.

That is arguably extraordinary.


Muslim Woman wants the right to wear burka, "just like American women"

Female member of Muslim Brotherhood claims movement “would give more freedom for all aspects of Egyptian society, including women”


  • Taking brainwashing to new hights:

Nor does it end there; according to her, “Islamic law would provide benefits for women similar to those of American women, such as equality between the genders … and the ability to choose what to wear without discrimination.” Obviously, she has another Islamic law in mind.

“A Woman in the Muslim Brotherhood,” from, via JW

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would give more freedom for all aspects of Egyptian society, including women, if the movement achieved power in the country, a female member of the group said.

* Yep. The freedom of the burka. How good is that?

Continue reading Muslim Woman wants the right to wear burka, "just like American women"