Kermit the killer - Where's the outrage?

Imagine this scenario. 
Two women are killed as a result of actions at a clinic run by a killer-doctor but he is still allowed to continue in business?

Now know that this isn't some fictitious rambling.  This is reality.  Read on and read it all.

Two women died after being operated on by Dr Kermit Gosnell.  He received three consecutive life sentences.  Why three?  Well, it wasn't for contributing to the death of these two women.  No, it was for the killing of three newborn babies.

You see, Kermit is a child-killer.  He killed these three babies by snipping their spinal cord, at the neck.    Given that he performed around 16,000 abortions, the three murders, for which he was convicted, can surely only be seen as a grisly sample.

Consider the world of Kermit the killer - a world where feet are kept in jars, bones are found in drains and foetuses stored in freezers above refrigerators where workers keep their lunches.  A place where, to save money, Kermit the killer, employed unqualified staff.  Would you like an 'anaesthetist' that had not even finished high school, to be loading you up with that 'knock you out and send you to sleep, kind of you know, thing'?

So why no outrage?  Where are the 'women's groups' screaming about this abuse?  Where are the representatives of the African-American people, shouting and rallying about the monster that operated in their midst? 

It seems to me (a man, I admit and a Catholic, to boot) that the women's groups are mostly quiet because Kermit the killer, was an abortionist and therefore because they unequivocally support abortion as being a matter of 'choice' for a woman, he must be alright.  Okay, so some will mutter words about him being an exception etc., and then immediately call for federal and state funds to pay for abortions so that the poor do not have to suffer at the hands of people like Kermit the killer.  They will ignore the fact that he was performing very late term abortions.  Indeed, he has been described as 'the abortion doctor of the last resort' on the east coast of the US.  If you had difficulty making your 'choice' don't worry, old Kermit the killer would be on hand to help.  Hell, maybe he could even help you chose your wardrobe?  Or help you chose which shoes to wear for the 'prom' when you just can't make up your mind!

Kermit the killer was making $1.8M a year from his killing business.  Some would say that's a lot of money.  For Kermit the killer though, he wanted to keep as much of it as possible and so, rather than inject the foetus with a lethal dose of drugs, he induced labour and then killed the child.  Make no mistake, some, maybe many of these, were viable babies.  24, 26, 28 week children, maybe older, delivered and then killed.

 And what about African Americans?  They, after all were his main victims.  His 'clinic' was based in the city of Philadelphia - the so called city of brotherly love - in the poor West of the city.  Rodney King gets beaten-up by the LA police and riots ensue.  16,000 foetuses are killed by Kermit the killer, over 31 years - that's almost 2,000 a year, 40 a week or 5 or 6 a day, every day - and nothing.  No outrage, no burnt-out buildings, no storming of City Hall, nothing. 

And, as far as City Hall is concerned, it maybe deserved to be stormed.  Officials simply didn't bother carrying out inspections because if they did, there was a feeling that many of the facilities would fail and then there would be less killing factories and less access for abortions. 

When Kermit the killer's clinic was raided this is what the authorities found

"When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as 'filthy,' 'deplorable,' 'disgusting,' 'very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,' and 'by far, the worst' that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff – long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic – and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration dates… surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary… resembling 'a bad gas station restroom.' Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed…"
[F]etal remains [were] haphazardly stored throughout the clinic– in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers... Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent... were probably older than 24 weeks [the legal limit]... In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls. The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered ... at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable."
(Source: Wikipedia)


 Words simply fail me.

The looming UK power crisis

Don't worry, this may not turn out to be a 'doom and gloom, better just slash your wrists' post!

The UK power generation regulator, Ofgem, has warned of the increasing risk of power outages (cuts to you and me) from 2015 onwards.   Think this is scare-mongering?  In March 2013, it was reported that the UK was within 6 hours of running out of gas.  6 hours!

The reasons given are the Global Financial crisis, tough emission targets, the UK's dependency on gas imports and the closure of ageing power stations.

Let's de-construct this a little.

Global Financial crisis??  I have tried to understand what this has to do with the lights going out but just don't see it (maybe I am in the dark?).  Okay, if there is no money around, you can't afford to pay for electricity but that isn't the issue here.  The issue is about generating capacity, or rather the lack of it.

Tough emission targets - This links up with the other two - increased dependency on gas imports and the accelerated closing of ageing power stations.  All three factors can be laid at the feet of the UK government.  The Labour party, when in power adopted idiotic policies to reduce reduce CO2 emissions in a unilateral attempt to solve a problem that wasn't there - so called 'man made global warming'.  The Coalition government slavishly allowed the Lib Dems to take the lead on this and followed the Labour party's pseudo-science and eco-posturing.

You may know that the UK produces less than 2% of global CO2 emissions and might ask yourself how will these tough UK emission levels impact the global levels and quickly come to the conclusion that these will make somewhere between zero and no difference to overall CO2 levels.  We don't need to have any kind of argument about whether there actually is such a thing as 'man made global warming', the simple fact is that the UK position is pointless and fatuous posturing.

As a result though, power stations are being forced to close.  These are described as ageing, though the truth is, like many of us, they still have a viable working life ahead.  It is somewhat ironic that at a time when people are being told they have to work longer because we are living longer, we now tear-down power stations because they are 'aged'.  Part of their ageing comes from recent accelerated usage and it is a kind of vicious circle.  As power stations get taken out of the system, those remaining have to take up the slack,  As they take up the slack, they use-up their allotted remaining generating capacity and so become 'aged' even earlier and get to meet the wreckers ball sooner.

The earthly paradise of a renewable energy fueled economy is proving to be as elusive as the fictional   'Shangri La'.  Except, that the fictional valley wasn't despoilt by hideous bird and bat killing machines.  Wind power makes a minute contribution to the UK's energy needs and must always, always be backed up with a fossil fuel (as in CO2 emitting) alternative, because the wind doesn't always blow or sometimes blows too hard!

So gas imports then.  From Russia and Qatar (and Norway, to a certain extent).  At some point though, you run into the closing power station issue!  DO we really want the UK to be dependant upon Putin's Russia for our energy?  Really?

Of course, we do have gas on, or rather right under, our own doorstep.  It's called Shale Gas.  This, along with Shale Oil, has completely changed the USA's energy market.  They are predicted to become a net exporter of energy in the coming years.   As shale reserves have been developed, the US economy has seen energy prices plummet.  That this has a very positive knock-on effect in the overall US economy , should not be overlooked but staying with the actual price of energy, natural gas prices in the US,  are now around half of those in the UK.  And the gap will continue to widen as more and more green taxes are loaded into the UK energy market and as capacity constraints take an even greater hold.

The British Geological Survey estimates that in one 'reservoir' area, in the north of England, there are reserves of around 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas.   To put that into context, the UK currently uses around 3 trillion cubic feet of gas, per year.

Obviously, the 1,300 trillion reserve is unlikely to be fully recoverable.  Let's be very conservative and say that 10% was recoverable.  That would be 130 trillion cubic feet or, looked at another way, 43 years of gas, based on current usage.  Consider that.  No import dependency, tax revenues from natural resource exploitation (all sub-surface reserves belong to the UK state) and no need for punitive green taxes, reduced fuel poverty, even increased employment.   And that 10% recovery level is very conservative

Oh, and that is just the north England basin.  There is a potentially far bigger one in the central belt of Scotland and others in the south of England.

So, why isn't this being exploited?  Frankly because of lazy journalists and politicians.  The latter should come as no surprise for many people.  There are exceptions but many MPs and MEPs live in a bubble where information is fed from lobbyists and single (minority) interest groups.  Journalists though, we might have expected more of.  We are not talking Woodward and Bernstein, but maybe some basic research?

Much of the opposition to shale gas comes because the extraction process requires something called 'fracking'  This is the fracturing of the reservoir formation with water and chemicals under high pressure.  An American, Josh Fox, produced a movie called Gasland which seemingly showed all sorts of consequences from 'fracking'.  This movie was picked-up and pushed by lazy media types and Hollywood 'celebrities' as well as a few from the even lazier US political circles and became the stick which they and their eco-loony 'watermelon' fellow travelers use, to attack evil 'big oil'.

This movie did indeed contain some very worrying claims and these would give any politician cause to pause and ponder.  Presumably that is what the leaders at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change did.

Pity then that they don't seem to have taken the time to view Fracknation.  A documentary by Phelim Mcaleer and Ann McElhinney.  In a measured and fact-based way, they take on all of the allegations from Gasland and refute and discredit them.  Every one of them.  (Oh, and if you're an eco-warrior and thinking this documentary was funded by big oil, think again.  The project was funded by hundreds of indviduals contributing $5, $10 $20 etc.  The single largest donation was $5,000!)

So you might think, since there are no major environmental concerns when will this natural windfall come to the aid of the UK?  My advice, not this side of the 2015 General Election and then only if the Conservatives are elected (maybe).  The Lib Dems  are so in thrall to special interest groups and has a strong 'eco-wing' so don't expect them to have an original thought on the issue nor to come out of their 'there is no such thing as man-made global warming' denial phase.  As for Labour?  Well, they put these lunatic green policies in place and never let facts get in the way of doing the wrong thing and following the wrong policy.

I challenge any reader that has got this far, to watch Fracknation and then, if you are as persuaded as I am, write to your MP and to local and national papers, demanding that the Department of (lacking) Energy and Climate Change take immediate action to accelerate shale gas exploitation and call a moratorium on all closures of power stations and reverse the imposition of green taxes.







  

Is Labour finally getting it?

Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband is reported to be delivering a speech, later today, where he will commit Labour to accepting the spending plans that they might inherit from the UK Coalition government.  The Lib Dems leader, Nick Clegg, is scheduled to deliver a speech where he too, will speak of the need for  a 'realistic manifesto' rather than a fanciful one.

Labour being Labour and Miliband being Miliband, we must consider the caveats that he employs in the non-embargoed speech. 

According to the BBC

"The Labour leader will say his party will not be able to reverse any spending cuts announced by Mr Osborne unless equivalent cuts are made elsewhere or a similar amount of revenue is raised from other means."

That kind of sounds like spending plans will be maintained but that doesn't exactly rule out tax increases.  Given Gordon Brown's propensity for all sorts of new tax wheezes, who can say what Gordon's protege, Ed Balls, will come up with.


The BBC goes on to report that Milliband will say

"Our starting point for 2015-16 will be that we cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day, current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue - not from more borrowing."

So where does that leave Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and all of those Labour politicians and those in Europe and the IMF/OECD who kept on saying that the UK's 'austerity' programme was going to far and that the UK government should borrow and invest in infrastructure?

Of course this massive policy U turn is just passed-by, by the biased BBC.   Watch and listen and see how many times the BBC ask either of the two Eds the 'when did you stop beating your wife question' - as in

Nick Robinson or James Landale to Ed B or Ed M
' So do you agree that this represents an endorsement of the Coalition policies pursued by David Cameron and George Osborne and vindication of what they have been saying all along, about the difficult economic conditions that they inherited, from the last Labour government and the harsh global economic situation?'
 
The Lib Dems too are sniffing the coffee and sensing that making unrealistic policy promises just won't fly with the electorate.  My view though is that it isn't coffee that they are smelling this morning, it is napalm.  Their abandoning of their student fees pledge will, I suspect, leave them in a scorched earth position.

For the Tories, this welcome dose of reality from the other parties, should provide them with an opportunity.  George Osborne should seize this to make and plan for deeper cuts and this time, take a large and sharp axe to the NHS.  Osborne is a very political Chancellor and surely he can see this is a chance to 'wrong-foot' Labour by getting them to commit to his spending plans before he has actually made them.  Why not then, use this as a weapon to make meaningful cuts in state expenditure.  I know that the Tories made some commitments about ring-fencing the NHS but now is the time to cut, cut, cut, in that department.  There cannot be a person on the planet, save for some head-hunting tribesman in Papua New Guinea, who doesn't think that the bloated NHS doesn't have some fat that could be trimmed.  Couple that with the rising anger at the way that the NHS is mis-run and they way it's patients are being mis-treated and, in some cases killed off and you sense that the scales are falling from the eyes of the public. 

I say that this new realism 'should provide' an opportunity for deeper cuts rather than does because at heart I don't think that the current Conservative leadership are really Conservatives, in the traditional sense.   So I am not holding my breath for anything radical in the upcoming spending review. 

Look at their pushing of the homosexual Same Sex Marriage bill.  Not in their manifesto, not supported by the party in the country but still they persisted with it. 

Look too at Europe, Cameron absolutely knows that he will not gain any meaningful concessions from the other EU members.  None.  Their will be a bone or two thrown to the UK, so that it can be dressed-up as a 'significant re-claiming of power' but the reality is that nothing of substance will come our way.  So why not start the re-negotiation process now and then go to the electorate, in 2015, with a clear position - vote Conservative and we will re-take control of the UK and will remove the UK from the EU?   I suspect that at heart, Cameron and the rest of the leadership want to stay in the EU because that is where all of their chums, from the elites that rule us, are located.  After all, it is only the man in the street that wants out.  No politician wants to stop the 'gravy train'.

NHS and death

Another day, another NHS cover-up story!

What shocks me about the latest news of a cover-up, is the way that politicians and the media express faux-surprise that these events (the failures surrounding baby deaths at Cumbria hospital) occur.

What do we expect? 

We have an organization that has gorged on ever-increasing sums of tax-payer money and whose now almost sole purpose is to ensure that it can extract ever more funding.  Patient care or more properly patient-centred care is not even on the agenda. 

The NHS has been broken for years.  The Labour party, mindful of the strong union presence within the organization, has thrown money at the NHS and have very skillfully brought the debate (or actually the lack of debate) to such a state that funding for the NHS is almost considered sacrosanct.  Even the Tories and the 'tail wagging the dog' Lib Dems took office promising to ring fence NHS spending plans and funding.

So while the army gets sent to fight wars, poorly or ill-equipped and for their troubles then face redundancies, doctors, nurses and the whole plethora of middle managers get to enjoy job protections and perks that the rest of the world can only dream of.

The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA)  recently produced a report which showed the staggeringly large amounts of money that is wasted by UK government in its various guises.  For anybody that pays taxes this is truly a frightening read.  The low-side estimated total is £120 Billion.  And that likely excludes a whole lot of other waste that the TPA highlight but don't add to the total on the grounds that they might then be double counting.  If only the government spenders were so careful and acted with such probity!

Here are just a few examples of the waste that is found just in the NHS:

• £13 Million by London NHS Trusts on Public Relations (Source TPA and BBC)
• £6 Million paid by a single NHS Trust to five doctors to provide 'top-up' services in the period 2007 to 2010 (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £18 Million paid in gagging orders to 600 NHS officials (Source TPA and Daily Telegraph)
• £80 Million spent on prescribing Vitamin D, much of which is overpriced - for example, £2,400 was spent on a £16 Vitamin D treatment.  (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £128,383 paid to a healthcare assistant who falsely claimed the right to work.  (Source TPA and NHS Business Services Authority)
• £1 Million - spent on luxury vehicles for Strategic health Authority employees, including Porsche Boxters (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £1 Million paid as a golden goodbye to a former chief executive of the NHS Midlands and East.

Sadly, the list goes on and on.  Remember also, that these are just some of the examples that the gallant TPA (not government funded) manage to uncover through Freedom of Information requests. 

Also these include examples uncovered by the press.  The same press that Leveson and all of the political parties want to muzzle!  Draw you own conclusions as to motive.  My view is that the freedom of the press to uncover such waste, is much more important than a celebrity's right to have a blow job in public and not have the police case exposed!  I suppose it comes down to values, in the end.

Talking of values, search your news outlets and media organizations.  See if you can find any calls for the resignation of Andy Burnham (or just see if you can find Andy Burnham).  He was the minister in charge of the NHS in the last Labour government - remember?  he was the one in charge when 1,200 people died at Mid Staffs Hospital as a result of appalling levels of care being administered in 'our wonderful NHS'.   See also if you can find anything of Sir David Nicholson.  He is the head of the NHS.  He received a knighthood, presumably for his services to the Health Service (you couldn't make it up).  He was the head of the relevant Strategic Health Authority, at the time of the Mid Staff deaths.  he retains his knighthood and will leave the NHS, next year, with a rumoured £4 million pension pot.  That should give him something like £200,000 a year pension, for life!  Oh, and he will get that, even if he then, after a short break, goes and joins a health consultancy  or medical equipment provider, pharmaceutical company, etc.!

Surely the scales must be starting to drop from the eyes of the people?  Mid Staffs and Cumbria are just the tips of a very murky iceberg, I fear.   We likely won't ever know the full extent of the negligence and poor care that people receive at the hands of 'our wonderful NHS' because this 'national treasure' uses tax-payer money to buy-off potential whistle-blowers and usually settles cases of alleged mal-practise out of court and with confidentiality clauses attached.

It is surely time that the ring-fence was removed from the 'envy of the world' - which strangely no other country copies - and the  excessive fat removed.  Radical reform is required but in reality I hold out little hope of change.  It doesn't seem to matter whether it is old people in Mid Staffs or babies in Cumbria that are dying - no one in government cares enough about them to do anything.  I guess, what it comes down to is that the dead don't have a vote! 
  

What does the USA get out of Syria intervention

What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?

Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help?  These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values.  Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria.  There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks.  These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy.  The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban.  Is this really what America wants?

Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so.  How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance?  Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it?  Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away?  How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?

What is the end game here?  Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.

The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.  The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.

In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels.  The upshot?  The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.  Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country. 

The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing.  The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability.  Does Obama hate Israel that much?

And then there is Turkey.  Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted.  Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.

Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong.  You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted.  Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week.  The French were saying these weeks ago.  OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ...   Or is that just me being cynical?
 

High Treason in the UK and the ECHR

It occurs to me that when the two Islamists attacked and murdered Drummer Lee Rigby, they actually committed treason.  They, by their own words, killed him because he was a serving soldier from the British Army.  And they committed this murder within the realm of HM Queen Elizabeth.  Surely that qualifies this as the crime of treason?

I thought, until just recently, that treason was one of the few crimes left, to which capital punishment could be applied.  However, it seems that a combination of acts passed by the last Labour government, including signing-up to the 13th protocol of the much-despised European Convention on Human Rights in 2004, means that the death penalty cannot be used as either a deterrent or as a fitting reward for these jihadists.  Yet another 'green light' for terrorists from Labour.

Much has been already written about how the ECHR and its application by British judges flies in the face of common sense and decency.  Much also has been said and many hands have been wrung by Conservative politicians about the need for reform of the ECHR.  It seems to me that it is a fundamental obligation, maybe even the fundamental obligation, of government to protect its people.  How do we square that with a government that seems powerless (or is maybe unwilling) to repeal legislation that puts the British people at daily risk?  How many innocent British people need to die before appropriate action is taken?

We have had Tony Blair 'apologizing', in 2006, for the UK's role in slavery and have seen other 'political apologies' made by various politicians but not one of them has ever apologized for signing-up the UK, to the alien ECHR or for keeping us as signatories.  

To say that the ruling elite is out of touch doesn't even come close. 

On the ECHR, the elite do not understand that the feeling of national impotence is not acceptable.  Westminster can no longer make laws with any expectation that they will have any force - every legal-aid financed lawyer (and that is almost all of them) salivates at the prospect of challenging laws passed by their own democratically elected representatives.  (Is that maybe a bit treasonous, on their part?)

On the EU, Labour at least recognizes the potency of feeling among the people and their demand for a referendum but Labour leader Ed Miliband has advised his followers (do we call them milipedes?) to abstain from the vote on the EU Referendum Private Members bill that is going through parliament.   The Conservatives are at least pushing this bill but, to David Cameron's shame, this isn't being put through as a Conservative government's measure - mustn't upset his Lib Dem 'allies' (though they seem to have no such sensitivity).

On immigration, all three main parties tread warily.  The liberal media and the so called equality industry (tax payer funded) jump on anyone that suggests perhaps we have got immigration wrong.  I am not against immigration but I do believe that pandering to immigrants and not requiring them to integrate into the existing indigenous population has been clearly wrong and I think that significant numbers of people believe the same.  Without I hope, sounding hypocritical though, Britain has reached a point where we cannot sustain increased immigration given our current economic model.  Rather than 'allowing' cheap labour in from other countries, shouldn't we be getting the workshy in our midst, off of welfare and into these jobs?  I say 'allowing' because in some cases, we are not authorized to stop people from the EU coming here.

On Welfare, Labour is so out of touch, it is not even funny.  The only people that they can count on are the direct beneficiaries of their 'Labour is the Welfare Party' policy.  The Conservatives spout on about austerity and the need for fiscal prudence but the minor cuts that they have made have been ineffective in reducing the overall debt burden of the country or its rate of increase.  I really can't fathom why the Conservatives don't go ahead and commit to deep cuts in public spending that the biased BBC, the Guardian and other 'lefties' accuse them of.  I think that the 'people' get it.  They understand that under Labour the UK overspent on a massive scale.  Those of them that are in work (in the private sector) understand that budgets have to be balanced and met and that when either the company's that they work for or they themselves overspend, a period of belt-tightening must follow.

On the environment, most people recognize that the punitive green taxes that are being imposed upon people, driving many old people into 'fuel poverty', are simply unnecessary gesture politics.  These policies will come home to roost when the lights start to go out in the coming years.  The despoiling of the physical environment, with useless wind turbines continues, and power stations are being closed at an unhealthy rate and not being replaced - 'brown-outs' loom.  Instead of addressing this with the urgency that people need, the elite are struggling to come to terms with the reality that the so called science behind all of this green scam has been repeatedly found to be false and falsified.  By the way, have you noticed how now that global warming' isn't actually occurring and people, even blinkered scientists can see this, these green fascists now call it 'climate change'.  We used to call that 'the weather' and just accept that it was changeable!  

Irony in America, for it's liberals

Do Americans 'do irony'?  Where does irony cross the line into hypocrisy?

I ask because we are being told that President Obama is to talk to President Xi Jinping of China and to give him and his regime a hard time about human rights in China and also take him to task on cyber security.

President Xi might be forgiven if he throws off the shackles of diplomatic language and tells Obama to sort his own house out, first.

Through the leaking of a Powerpoint presentation, we now know that there has been wholesale monitoring of the internet, telephone calls and who knows what else in the communications field, through a programme called PRISM.  All of this is done in the name of national security.

Obama said, yesterday, "you can't have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience".  How is that comment sitting today, with those liberal media that fawned all over Obama when he burst on the scene (and still do fawn)?  How protected will your 'confidential sources' feel, knowing that the 'Pres' can track them down?

Obama went on to say  "We're going to have to make some choices."  Of course, because all of this surveillance was happening in secret, nobody was presented with any kind of choice to make.  When you don't trust the people, why should they trust you, Mr President?  Perhaps though, when Obama said 'we're going to have to make some choices' the 'we' wasn't the people but the security apparatus?

There will be all sorts of talk about it only being those with 'something to hide' that have anything to fear - we'll see.  Hoover's FBI were famous for collecting all sorts of stuff on people and not being afraid to use it.  Of course, J Edgar had a special kind of view of what constituted 'national security', but who is to say that Obama or others of his ilk, might not use the PRISM data to target 'their enemies'?  Given what has happened at the IRS, it isn't as if they don't have any 'form' in this area!

Americans love to quote their constitution and the rights that flow from it.  First and foremost of these is the First Amendment that Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government  - how's that 'protection and freedom' sitting with the liberal media, today?  Secure?

I suppose that the foregoing will actually fall into the PRISM orbit and so then will all who read this - scary isn't it?