What's wrong with Americans?

I have a personal rule that I don't swear or use profane language on my blog or Twitter and don't post comments that contain the same, however, some Americans, (call that many,) are pushing me to the edge.

Exactly what does it take for America's politicians to actually move away from the pork barrel and stand-up for America and Americans?

I am not an American but if I were, I would be ashamed to say so right now.

Consider.

In Sudan, the wife of an American citizen, was forced to wear shackles while giving birth and will now proceed to be executed for the crime of apostasy - that is, she chose to give up the religion of her birth - Islam - so that she could follow our Lord Jesus Christ. 

In Mexico,  US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, is being held on charges of illegally entering Mexico and bringing weapons into the country.  It must be the greatest of ironies that America's open southern border, which is so poorly policed by America's Border Patrol, is better managed on the other side by the federales!  But hey, John 'I was against the Vietnam War and I speak with a deep voice' Kerry has asked Mexico for help on this!

In Phoenix and many other American cities, veterans of foreign wars (people like Post Traumatic Stress Dis-order sufferer, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi) are dying because they don't receive care.  They  are on waiting lists but you wouldn't know that because the lists are held secret.  The public lists show that the Veteran's Administration is doing a great job in caring for America's veterans.  That must be the case because these VA personnel are getting bonuses for a job well done.

Then there is the continuing sorry tales of Benghazi (4 Americans abandoned by the Obama and Clinton administration), Fast and Furious (wasn't that about guns going over the border, into Mexico??), the IRS targeting of right-of-centre dissident groups, like the Tea Party, the Bundy ranch raid and so on and on.

On the international scene.

America is withdrawing from Afghanistan.  This fulfills Obama's pledge to do so, though the US will leave behind 9,800 troops until 2016.  The pretense is that the rationale of establishing a stable government in that country, one which enjoys widespread support and has security forces that can be trusted to serve the interests of the people of Afghanistan and not those of the local warlord or the Taliban, has been met.  Even the Kool-Aid drinking Obama Main Stream Media don't believe or report that Afghanistan is stable!

The Ukraine?  Russia is flexing its muscles and getting exactly what it wants and America's reaction is to freeze bank accounts and issue travel bans.  I didn't expect any better from the ineffectual European Union.  Right now the EU focus is on hiding the mess that is the Euro common currency, by crushing the young unemployed of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.  I did kind of expect something more robust, from America.  Maybe an invite to Ukraine, to join Nato or at least a threat to do so.  I suppose though that with Obama's complete indifference to borders, it was to be expected that Russian violation of Ukraine's border and destabilizing of a sovereign nation,  would not raise too much concern in the Obama White House.

What does get the Obama White House concerned?

Well Michelle Obama has got all riled up about the 200+ girls that have been kidnapped by the terrorist Muslim group Boko Haram.  She took to Twitter, with the hashtag #Bringbackourgirls  Well here's a news flash Mrs Obama.  They aren't your girls.  They aren't America's girls because they aren't Americans.  Where is the American First Lady appealing for the release of AMERICAN Sgt, Andrew Tahmooressi? Where is Mrs Obama's condemnation of the treatment Merian Ishag, the wife of an American citizen and mother of a new born baby, that is about to be executed in Sudan. 

Don't search the media for comments from Michelle or Barack Obama or better yet actions from the 'most powerful man on earth' because you won't find them.  To me the inescapeable conclusion is that Sgt. Andrew Tahmorressi's problem is that he is white.  Merian Ishag's problem is that she converted to Christianity.  Those are sins that this most racist of White House administrations cannot forgive. 

Michelle Obama has put herself on the front line with her Twitter campaign but doesn't then question why her husband's administration repeatedly failed to declare Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, which it certainly is and always has been.  Husband Barack may not have wanted to offend his Muslim allies but what was former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's reason? 

My anger on the above has caused me to stray.  The real ire should be directed at the American people that allow their political 'leaders' to whore their country and political districts, the way that they do.  The Keystone pipeline can't be approved because Democrat donor, the billionaire Warren Buffet opposes approval and wants to keep moving oil in train cars, that he owns! 

These same politicians should be calling for the impeachment of President Obama for all of the crimes that have occurred under his watch (see above). 

They should be calling for the ouster of John Kerry.  This fool now claims that the greatest threat to America is climate change!  Not the Islamic terrorists,  that his President allows to cross into America, through open borders and easy immigration, or to carry out atrocities.  Not the resurgent Russians or expanding Chinese threat, no it is climate change.   The greatest threat to America comes from something that is unproven, except with very dodgy statistics.  The only rationale for citing this as the threat, that I can come up with, is that this can be used to justify yet billions more of US tax dollars being wasted on this pseudo-science.  The 'peaceniks' that run America today will probably see that as a more noble cause than caring for America's veterans of foreign wars!

So, back to the American people.  What is up with them?  Why aren't they clamoring for action?  I know that so many more Americans are now on food stamps and, in Obama's liberal paradise, unemployed and on welfare but surely there are still some people for whom the term patriot is not seen as a slur.  Some Americans who understand that the country must honour its commitment to its military - they did their part, now its the turn of America!  Some Americans who understand that to retain power you sometimes have to be prepared to actually display it.  Some Americans that look at Russia and China and see them as potential or even real enemies that need to be confronted.  Some Americas that understand the Islamic Republic of Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Some Americans that understand that its best friend in the Middle East is Israel.  Some Americans that know that offering an amnesty to illegal immigrants (again!)  will only encourage the next wave of illegals! 

I could go on but maybe I should leave it at that.  Maybe some Americans (don't hold your breath for too many American politicians though) will step up for their country.  It certainly needs it

If not Ed

Following their less than sparkling out-turn from the UK local elections, there are mumblings from the ever fraternal politicians, in the Labour Party, that maybe leader, Ed Miliband, should be replaced.

The thought never seems to cross their mind, that maybe the message is wrong.

Anyhow, that got me thinking about who could replace Ed.  The job spec. would include phrases like 'must have more personality than a finger puppet', 'must have coherent policies that address the needs of the people and can be easily articulated',  'must not talk about concepts like pre-distributive', 'must not talk in a whiny schoolkid 'miss they're being nasty to me' kind of voice'.

So the candidates.

Ed's brother, David Miliband?  The nearly candidate who was defeated by Ed?  Don't think so.  This is the same man that led everyone to believe he was about to take on the deranged Gordon Brown and then chickened out and instead of bringing along an ultimatum or resignation and challenge,  to the 'Kirkcaldy kook' brought a banana, instead!

Ed Balls?  Hardly!  He, like Ed M himself, is still tied to Gordon's failed economic policies.  Indeed, he still spouts them.  He predicted doom and gloom,  if the very modest cuts initiated by the Conservatives, were enacted.  By all measures, he was spectacularly wrong.  He's an attack dog politician, that tries to hide his innate thuggery behind a very thin smile and only use his bully boy tactics, when forced to but the real Balls is never far from the surface.

Yvette Cooper?  The wife of Ed Balls.  Just the fact that she is married to Ed Balls, should be sufficient reason to discount her.  How could the Labour Party have a leader that makes such a poor choice in spouses?  Okay, so I hear you say, what about Tony Blair?  Well, yes but would Labour repeat the mistake?  Anyway, she loses on the whiny voice front as well.  She is the plain and mousy person that always did her homework on time and only associated with other kindred spirits.  As said though, poor judgement on the spouse front must exclude her.

Chuka Umunna?  The Shadow Business Secretary has certainly done everything to push his credentials.  He always dresses in sharp suits and speaks so moderately but I think that he just isn't up to it and he certainly won't have a big constituency among the leader electors.  There is something about Chuka that always suggests to me that, he is looking to move on to something bigger but mainly something that means he doesn't need or want  to mix with the hoi polloi and, heaven for fend, workers.

Andy Burnham?  I only include him as a joke.  Far too toxic given his association with the Mid Staffs scandal.  In any leadership campaign, he would automatically start with 1,300 less votes as that is the number of NHS patients that died, at that hospital, on his watch.

Harriet Harman?  She is so ludicrously 'right on'  that she just might change her name to Harriet Harperson.  No, she and fellow MP and husband, Jack Dromey, are seen as fools and hypocrites - not unusual qualifications for a politician but Harriet is just too 'nanny state'.

Jim Murphy?  This might be a possibility except that he is so outwardly 'Scottish'  He is from the Glasgow side of Scotland and so doesn't have that Edinburgh condescending approach but I am not sure Labour can risk putting a Scot in charge as the association, by voters, with Brown, might be considered to be taking too much of a chance.  Seems like a decent and grounded person though, and not so metro-elitist as almost all of the others.

So, not really much choice for Labour.  The obvious solution would be to 'cut out the middle-man' and go for Len McCluskey, the leader of the public sector union, Unite.  McCluskey controls the purse strings anyway, so why not let him be the actual mouthpiece for the party he has bought?

Says a lot for the dearth of quality, that these are the only candidates that might replace Ed

It isn't a protest!

In the local elections in parts of the UK and in the elections for the European 'parliament', the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is expected to do well and gain lots of seats.

The main parties - Conservatives and Labour (surely the Lib Dems are disappearing so fast that they can no longer be considered 'major'?) are tying to portray the surge in support for UKIP as some kind of protest.

In some ways it is, but not in the way that they think it is (or at least publicly state it is). 

UKIP has tapped in to three main interlinked issues.  Disillusionment with Europe and concern about immigration are two of them and they are linked by the third - disengagement.  That is, the political elite have become dis-engaged or detached if you will, from the people of Britain.  All of the main parties (yes, including the Lib Dems) adopt a socialist 'we know best' approach.  They mostly exist in a Westminster bubble and do not understand and cannot even try to comprehend what affects and concerns ordinary people.  That is, people outside of that 'bubble'.  This elite is only really exposed to each other and so the lack of comprehension is entirely understandable (though not forgivable).

Ed Miliband and the Labour Party have been prattling on about a 'cost of living crisis' for months.  Trying to make this a theme in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.  Then Miliband was asked what was the price of certain goods and he didn't have a clue!  I am not making this up!  For months, Labour have ranted about how people are suffering from high and increasing prices but they are so out of touch, they don't know what that actually means.

The Conservatives think that they can just demonstrate good stewardship of the economy and people will re-elect them.  Thing is, when you are in the Westminster bubble, the economy does look good.  The price of houses in London (some even funded by the taxpayer, through allowances paid to MPs!!) are rising at a high rate.  Leave aside, for a moment, any concerns about a housing bubble, just understand that all this demonstrates is that for some the economy has turned around.  For the many though, times remain tough. 

I am talking here of people that have to work for a living.  They don't really feel the benefits of this economic growth.   These people see, and have to pay for,  local councils, which are dominated by public sector unions, continuing to impose local taxes upon them.  These people had to 'tighten their belts' during the economic crisis, but they see that national and local government really didn't do too much in the way of cutting the deficit or debt.  These people know that their generation and that of their parents have built up un-sustainably high levels of national debt for their children and grandchildren.  Debt which will hobble the UK economy, long into the future.  They also know that they want politicians to represent them ( hope that is not too radical a thought, over your morning cuppa!) They want politicians to know something of what they have to live through and to understand some of the guilt that they feel at shackling their children with such levels of debt.  They simply are not getting that from most of the Westminster politicians.  (I won't even mention how out of touch are the Euro MPs!!)

So don't think it's a protest vote.  It is a 'wake-up Westminster and town hall' vote.  It's a 'sit-up and take notice of me and start to do what is right for the country not what is comfortable in the polls' vote.  It's a 'we all need to start thinking of the future' vote.

If anything, it is a 'guilt' vote but please don't dismiss this as a protest vote!  

What is Scotland worth?

I ask this question because it seems to me that the Scottish Nationalist argument all boils down to money.  'It's Scotland's oil' they scream and then prattle on about how Scotland's economy will flourish after they gain independence. 

On the revenue side, Scotland will gain complete access to oil revenues however, all indications on the cost side indicate that Scotland will be close to, or in deficit due to current and future expenditure plans.  Scotland is sitting on a demographic time-bomb relative to an aging pension-requiring population.   For argument's sake, let's say the economic picture is neutral - maybe positive in the short to medium term and moving to negative in the longer term as oil and gas production declines and welfare costs continue to climb.

If you listen to some SNP supporters, you will be told that Scotland was 'sold' to the English for £400,000 (£40 million in today's money).  That amount is the debt that Scotland's then ruling elite faced, because of their failed Darien Scheme, back at the turn of the 18th century.  The argument is that this debt forced Scotland to go 'cap in hand' to the English and union was the price that England demanded. 

So is that what Scotland is 'worth'?  I would strongly say no. 

However, I measure Scotland's worth not in monetary terms but in what the Scottish people, in union with those of England Wales and Ireland, have achieved, together, over the years. 

Created the largest empire that the world has ever seen and brought democracy and legal systems that continue to be used for the benefit of great swathes of mankind.  Topically, consider India just now holding parliamentary elections using the British-inspired democratic model.  We Brits did that! Together!  Contrast that with other countries where power is obtained by the gun and maintained by the gun and by fear! 

Some, including myself, have harped on about government spending and have used that as a measure of Scotland's 'worth'.  The argument is that Scotland receives a higher per capita share of government spending than does England and so relies on English money/largess.  Factually that is so but that doesn't mean that Scotland is somehow 'worth' less than other parts of the United Kingdom!  Statistics show that in 2009, Scotland had a Gross Value Added/per capita result of £19,744.  This compared with £20,442 for England.  However, The North East of England results shows £15,621 but no one suggests that the 'geordies' are somehow not British or should have independence or are 'worth' any less than any other Briton!  Given some of the well-documented social deprivation in the North East and above average levels of unemployment, the per capita spend there is likely higher than in other parts of England and indeed, maybe also Scotland but there is no clamour for Free Newcastle - Free Newcastle Brown Ale, maybe- but no shouts for an independent GeordieLand.

What has prompted my questions on the 'worth' of Scotland is that there seems to be far too few non-Scots and UK MPs speaking on the issue of the independence referendum.  I said here ( http://bit.ly/1kaSHzb) that the United Kingdom seems to have no Plan B if the Scots do vote for independence, but equally I am saddened by the lack of passion coming from Westminster politicians.  They should be making speeches extolling the virtues of the Union and daily banging on about the risks that an independent Scotland face:

Risks like uncertainty over its currency - can't be the pound, might have to be the Euro.

Risks like the very clear steer from the EU, that a newly independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU - membership that would require border controls with England (because Scotland would not have the Schengen opt-outs that the UK enjoys). 

Risks like Scotland having to adopt the Euro as its currency - risks that, if the Scottish Nationalists are right about the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, then that means Scotland contributing to the bail-out of the next Euro-crisis victim (there will be more!).

David Cameron is currently in Scotland and making speeches in favour of a No vote but when I hear him speak, I don't hear any passion.  The deafening silence from Labour's Ed Miliband and the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg is especially concerning, given that Scotland provides a large number of UK parliamentary MPs for those parties.

So my message today, is to all those concerned for the Union, SPEAK UP!  Get on social media and show your pride in being British , whether you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish.  Tell the world how Great is Britain and what we, as a united nation have contributed to the world. For example, how a Scot, Sir Alexander Fleming, discovered penicillin, while working in England.  How the Brits brought democracy to the world!  The Greeks only 'invented' the word!


 

What is integrity?

I think most people would say that integrity is about doing the right thing.  The best description I have heard is that 'integrity means doing the right thing, even when no one else is looking'.

Most people would, I suggest, also like to think that they and their fellow countrymen and most particularly their political leaders, act with integrity.  There is a sense that is common, on how we should behave.

However, and you knew there was one coming.  However, when people enter through the doors of the  political world, integrity leaves through the windows.

In short, why do politicians act as poorly as they do?  And, to be clear, when I say politicians I include all the government service bureaucrats and all of those that swim in the public-funded pool - be they directly funded organizations, NGOs or 'funded' scientists, etc..

Take Lois Lerner, as an example.  This is the woman that was, until recently, the head of America's Internal Revenue Service.  During her tenure, the IRS targeted right of centre groups.  These groups were entitled to certain tax-privileged status under the US Tax Code, so long as they met certain conditions.  Lerner's IRS repeatedly challenged and delayed the special tax status for these right of centre groups - such as various Tea Party organizations.  The purpose seems clear.  Use unelected government employees to frustrate, using illegal means, the rights of American citizens to exercise democratically passed tax laws, in the furtherance of opposing political aims.  One defence put forward by Lerner and her allies, is that they applied the rules 'even-handedly'.  They did the same due diligence on tax exempt status for left of centre groups.  As evidence they talk of 5 or 6 such groups being impeded in gaining their special status.  When you contrast that with the hundreds of 'right' groups that suffered delays and bully-boy tactics, you can see a very clear political agenda being followed.

Lois Lerner, an employee of the IRS - or, put another way, a (well) paid servant of the American people, was called before Congress.  Now, excuse me while I get a little 'utopian' on you but Congress, or in the UK, parliament, is where the representatives of the people go to transact business on behalf of their electorate.  Where we expect them to do things and hold people to account for things, that we, as individuals cannot.

Ms Lerner, then preceded to plead the 5th Amendment in front of Congress.  She refused to answer questions put to her, on the grounds that to do so honestly, might incriminate herself.   So, when asked, by representatives of the American people,  about how she did the job for which the American people lavishly compensate her, she refused to answer.  I guess I wouldn't make a good juror if Lois ever came to trial before me.  I figure that asking her how she carried out her job is an entirely legitimate question and, when she pleaded the 5th, I would draw the reasonable conclusion that she was  not carrying out those duties in a legal manner otherwise she wouldn't be worried about self-incrimination.

Anyway, it seems that Lerner will now face sanctions of some kind as the House of Representatives found her to be in contempt of Congress.  The vote was 231 in favour and 187 against.  Those in favour included 6 Democrat party representatives.  In terms of integrity though, I find it both appalling and and at the same time interesting/instructive that 187 politicians - all Democrat Party members - didn't see that Lerner's actions were, in fact, a contempt of Congress and, by extension, contempt for the American people.

To take it a bit further, acting with integrity, screams that Lerner is in contempt.  Abandoning integrity and toeing the party line, says that while she may be in contempt, we Democrats won't throw her to the Republican wolves nor will we do anything that aids the opposition.  (Or, for that matter, we Democrats will do nothing to restore the faith of the people in politicians either knowing or doing the 'right thing'!)

Some of those 187 will be out of a job, come November and will have more time to ponder their character deficiencies.  But think about it.  What causes such people to abandon morality on political grounds?

In case you think I am Lerner obsessed, I am not.  I am just using that to illustrate the point about the decline or lack of morality that is seen in modern day politics.  My focus is on the UK and US.  These are 'mature' democracies and as such, one would expect the basic values to be more ingrained.   There are numbers of European countries, for example, where democracy and the rule 'of the people, by the people' are new concepts - some being in place for less than 40 years.  In those countries, one might expect the flower of integrity to be fragile and initially feeble as the plant comes up against modern day real-politiks but in the established UK and US democracies - countries founded on documents like Magna Carta and the US Constitution and indeed, a Judeo-Christian religious ethic - one would really expect that the roots of integrity and basic honesty, would be deeper and stronger.

What makes Jay Carney, the White House Press spokesman, stand up in front of a largely compliant media, and day after day, dodge and prevaricate, when answering the few questions that he gets asked, about Benghazi?  It surely isn't to protect the national security interests of the USA - that might make it slightly more legitimate - but no, it is solely to protect the Obama administration (the one that was elected by we the people, I do hope you are keeping up! ) from questions to which the people, want answers.

I do hope my American readers don't think I am targeting them and suggesting that my home country is any better.

In the UK, we have seen and heard, over the years countless examples of politicians and public servants acting without integrity.  From accepting money to ask questions in parliament to other far more serious issues. 

To illustrate the latter.  Under the (envy of the world, so British leftists claim) National Health System
more than 1,300 patients died at a hospital group called Mid Staffs.  These hospital patients were found to have received very poor and in some cases downright inhumane treatment from the staff into whose care they had been placed.  An eventual Public Inquiry found significant numbers of short comings and examples of abuse.

And yet.  Sir David Nicholson, then head of the NHS area that included Mid Staffs, who later went on to become overall head of the NHS received no punishment.  Indeed he was able to retire, just this year on a full, highly remunerative, pension.  Andy Burnham, who was the Labour Party minister responsible for the NHS, has received no sanction.  Indeed he continues to represent that portfolio for the Labour Party.  

Okay neither received punishment.  I think that many, if not most, people would say that they should have experienced some small percentage of the suffering that  was inflicted on those 1,300 victims but, that aside, what kind of people are they, that they have no integrity or moral compass that screams at them saying 'this was wrong and even while I didn't personally commit any injury to people, this happened on my watch and I must set an example and do the decent thing' ?

Why is it that so many people, on entering politics or public service, abandon basic morality and act with little or no integrity?  We have scientists for heaven's sake, scientists who purposefully distort data and suppress information and then seek to silence and punish any critics, all in the furtherance of  an unproven theory.  (In fact a theory that is not just unproven but for which the contrary position is becoming ever more apparent, based on facts and evidence!)

We have American military people who are given orders to not go to the aid of  Americans that are being attacked (and ended-up being brutally tortured, raped and murdered) and these people do not have the integrity to do the right thing.  Incidentally, the current stories suggest that President Obama wasn't even in the White House Situation Room while events in Benghazi unfolded.  The word is that the President's special adviser, his fellow-traveler from Chicago, the unelected Valerie Jarrett, was calling the shots.  Maybe that's what Jay is covering-up?

I am not seeking to set off some kind of moral crusade here but is it so crazy to expect higher standards from our elected officials?  Suppose it is.  Is it crazy to expect that those that are paid by 'the people' are at least answerable to those self same 'people' and this is especially important when those 'sucking on the public teet' are unelected.

Please feel free to pass this on and particularly to your elected representatives - we really do need to bring about change and restore the notion that acting with integrity is the right thing to do.

 

Using language

If you're a liberal, socialist or communist you don't need to read this.  You already know what I am about to say.  You do this all the time.

This message is for conservatives.

We conservatives need to start using language more effectively. 

Consider.  What does the word progressive denote?  Let's skip the dictionary definition.  In political parlance this means someone of the left.  The left has taken a positive word and made it their own.  So policies that increase the encroachment of the state into our lives are said to be progressive.  Policies that infringe more and more on the liberties of people are promoted by progressives.  And, if you oppose such a policy, then you are a reactionary.  You are not forward thinking, you are a throwback to the bad old times.  You don't want the state reading all of your e-mails and listening to your calls?  What have you got to hide?  The state has to do this because the state is your sole protector!

Consider also.  What is a racist?  Or perhaps more accurately, what makes someone eligible to be called a racist? 

Today, you are a racist if you are white and are non-Muslim and you dare to question anyone who isn't white or Muslim.  You are racist if you say that the abomination that is female genital mutilation, which is widely practised in some countries, is wrong.  You are a racist because those countries happen to be Muslim. 

You are a racist if you say that Obamacare is a disaster because its chief architect happens to be non-white.  You might not mention Obama's colour when disparaging Obamacare.  You might try and be clever and restrict your comments to the shortcomings of the internet sign-up process but that won't save you! 

You are racist if you dare to question why the organs of the federal state descend upon Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch, armed to the teeth, over an unpaid tax bill of $1M but let the hate-monger Al Sharpton prowl the networks spouting his anti-white bile, while owing the IRS somewhere north of $1.7M.

Leftists and liberals close down arguments by throwing labels at  people, watching them stick and then refusing to debate with a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist  or whatever.  In the UK and in the USA, you are a racist if you want to even try and talk about immigration.  Somehow great swathes of the population, who have legitimate concerns, are labeled racists and, quite naturally shrink back from the debate because, who wants to be called a racist?

Who wants to be associated with the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazi party both of which pushed truly racist - as in racial purity type - policies.  Interestingly, the KKK were established by the Democrats (party of the left) in the USA and the name Nazi comes from National Socialists, also of the left!

While we are in a historic moment, think also about how galling it must be for American Republicans to be lectured on racism and called racists by Democrats.  The emancipation of slaves in America,  came about because of a Republican President with the support of the Republican party and against the overwhelming and unanimous opposition of the Democrat party!

I could go on citing numerous examples of where the left ignores its historical association with failed and wrong policies and now takes the moral high ground but that isn't the purpose of this post.

I think it is time that we started 'flipping' the words and change the terms of debate. 

So for example,  anyone that promotes stifling debate on immigration - inflows in the UK and amnesty in the USA, is called a reactionary and a racist and is someone that wants to push a reactionary and racist policy.  Anyone that wants to talk about these issues is progressive.  They want to be seen as thinking of the future.

Low taxes and smallest possible  government - that is progressive!  Ever higher state involvement in all aspects of life? That is regressive and illiberal! 

I hope you get my drift. 

From now on, please start throwing those labels right back at the left.  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, President Obama, Jay Carney, the Democrat Party or CAIR in the USA and the Labour party, the BBC, UNITE union, the EU and the Lib Dems  in the UK - all rabid racists.  Reactionaries, every single one of them. 
 
In the 'twittersphere' one see lots of tweets from American conservatives concerned at Obama's attack on the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms).  Some have already got my message.  They post pictures of weapons and to the statement - 'ban guns' - the response is 'it's because I'm black, isn't it!'   I just love how banning guns can be shown to be racist!  More please.