An ideology that permits the behaviour described above has no place in civilised society yet its adherents are courted by politicians to gain their support. Even supposedly Christian leaders fall into the same trap.
The goal of Islam is to take over the entire world because they believe that Muslims have a right given by their God, Allah, to "take over the lands of the inferior non-Muslim nations where infidels do not believe in Islam and refuse to worship Allah."
The fate of the West in Muslim eyes has already been made clear.
How can anyone who enjoys their freedom vote for supporters of such an ideology?
In the above video Keir Starmer speaks to Sadiq Khan about how Khan celebrates Eid before going on to discuss Islamophobia which he describes as 'intolerable'.
A phobia is a "persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself."
There is nothing irrational, excessive or unreasonable about the fear of Islam, a political ideology that sees non-Muslims as infidels. Three things you should know about Islam can be viewed here.
Douglas Murray is one of the few prepared to put the problem of fact and fiction into perspective as he does here.
Islamophobia (as explained here) is an invention designed to grant special privileges that Islam would deny to others.
In April The Express reported that a "new survey found that nearly half - 46 percent - of British Muslims sympathise with Hamas while a third wished for Shariah law to be implemented in the UK."
Sadiq Khan says it is a priority for him to "build thousands more homes in London for Muslims to live near mosques and halal food shops."
"If Islam ran the country, it would be the end of all our freedoms" warns an ex-Muslim lady.
Starmer's vote gathering is truly offensive in a Christian nation.
Postscript (28.06.2014)
Post by Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, including a prophetic Christopher Hitchins video on X here
"Marriage is the bedrock of our society and now irrespective of sexuality everyone in British society can make that commitment. It is a wonderful achievement and whilst this legislation may be about marriage, its impact is so much wider. Making marriage available to all couples demonstrates our society’s respect for all individuals regardless of their sexuality. It demonstrates the importance we attach to being able to live freely. It says so much about the society that we are and the society that we want to live in."
In my mind's eye I can still see her at the dispatch box, brazenly lecturing the Britain people on how we should order our lives when in reality she was pressing the case of an unrepresentative minority for political purposes, creating a law which required numerous subsequent amendments to avoid, for example, a gay King’s ‘husband’ from becoming Queen!
It is now clear why Mrs Miller was so positive about "being able to live freely" in "the society that we want to live in." She had experience of living freely at the expense of the tax-payer.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that the Culture Minister had over-claimed by £45,000 for expenses towards mortgage interest payments and council tax but the Commons Standards Committee ruled that Mrs Miller should repay only £5,800 and apologise to parliament for her "attitude".
The Prime Minister regards that as reasonable for an 'honest mistake'. He said, "It was found she had made mistakes, she accepted that, repaid the money, she apologised unreservedly to the House of Commons, so I think we should leave it there." His comments will make 'the hard working people of this country' wonder why there is one law for the privileged and another for the rest of us. As one MP remarked, "If one of my constituents had claimed £6,000 of taxpayers' money for, say, housing benefit and then tried to claim that it was an oversight, that she hadn't realised that she wasn't entitled to this money, the book would be thrown at my constituent, rightly."
Having made a terse, inadequate 'apology' to the House, Mrs Miller keeps her job despite being regarded as a mediocre minister who is "out of her depth". Perhaps she feels secure as one of the few women in Team Cameron happy to act as his trumpet. A successful grammar school girl keen to make good she has been used by a privileged elite to undermine the institution of marriage in a squalid vote chasing exercise.
The Telegraph suggests that the 'apology' was used as an occasion to bury bad news but that is no surprise these days when everything seems designed to gain votes at any expense. That is evidenced by Dave looking to the Muslim vote by claiming that "halal meat will be protected as long as he Prime Minister". Perhaps that is why he prefers to shop at Waitrose with customers who are "more engaged than those who shop elsewhere". Somewhere he can rely on getting halal meats.
Nothing it seems is too difficult for us to swallow!
Bankers' bonuses, obscene football fees and now compensation for convicts. According the the Mail online article highlighted above, "lawyers have set up shop in dozens of prisons, encouraging inmates to claim compensation for not having the right to vote. They have already collected 2,500 clients seeking payouts at the European Court of Human Rights."
People go to prison for breaking the law which is what many Members of Parliament propose we should do. Others suggest we simply defy European Human Rights law. The Prime Minister reportedly felt physically ill at the prospect of giving prisoners the vote, so much so that it has caused impotency leaving MPs on the backbenches to put a motion before the Commons to do something about it.
Voters fed up with the 'ambulance chasing' culture that pollutes our justice system don't want to see it spread to aid convicts rip-off taxpayers. We are constantly told to tighten our belts while others get fat at our expense. Some problems simply can't be left to 'localism', the Big Society or simply laissez faire.
Today is decision day. Some will already have cast their votes while others, unless they have an unbending party allegiance, still look for inspiration. There is no point in looking to the press, since most of the newspapers serve their paymasters not the readers.
I have generally regarded the BBC as impartial but today the Mail Online runs the story: “For days the BBC has been banging the drum for the Lib Dems. But then we should never underestimate their hatred of the Tories”. ‘Hatred’; that’s a bit strong but we know where the The Mail is coming from. The BBC puts out a lot of information but not many people these days have the patience to listen/watch over an extended period which is one of the reasons I thought the CH 4 programme I blogged on previously so good.
One piece of advice I find myself out of step with is given by Cranmer in his Blog (see left) – not politically of course – who, in true blue, offers “Seven reasons for Christians to vote Conservative”. I understand where he is coming from but taking the Established Church as an example it’s a bit rich blaming politicians for being anti-Christian while Anglicans are governed by two-faced bishops with their clerical and lay supporters who have ratted on the orthodox in their flock for political correctness substituting feminism for faith. The church is becoming an ‘also ran’ so better to cast one’s vote for the common good free from religious prejudice.
From the discussions I have had, most are agreed that there has been too much personality and two little substance. This was borne out by one television programme I watched. It brought together twelve voters to give their opinions. For my money only one was worth listening to. Most simply spouted the lines picked up from TV with all the conviction of ventriloquist dummies while one had never even heard of Nick Clegg. Obviously saw no point in keeping herself informed.
In practice my vote will count for little having an MP with a healthy majority and an excellent record in the constituency so how I cast my vote is unlikely to make a huge difference. More generally I think it important that people vote for the system they believe in. That gets my vote, I think!
