Food banks

What is it with the UK's Labour Party and their socialist fellow-travelers that they so dislike food banks?

Food banks are organisations that receive gifts of food from members of the public and from retail organisations and then distribute this food to members of society that need it.

Okay they are usually locally focused and they don't have the normal top-heavy management structures, so beloved of other charities.  And yes they don't go in for a lot of lobbying against government policies and being hypocritical about pushing Green and so called Global Warming issues, while jetting around the world or driving to far-off conferences and 'get-togethers' in in energy consuming vehicles, while pushing a transport free future for the rest of us!  They don't have celebrities 'effing and blinding' and emoting on TV asking for the public to give money.

As said earlier, they rely on contributions from members of the public and supermarkets and such.  Obviously, I encourage all readers to put a tin or a packet or two into the collection trolleys at their local store or supermarket but I for one won't be giving you a hard time because you want to help you neighbors.  The old saw about 'charity begins at home' continues to strike a chord with people, who give, freely and without any instruction from their political masters!

Except, except the Labour Party and the SNP (and probably also the Greens and Plaid Cymru)  don't like food banks.  Is it because the Welfare State isn't involved in this example of welfare?  Is it because these food banks are run by volunteers and some are organised by religions?

I suspect that Labour and their ilk don't like food banks because they cannot act as a 'middleman'.  People that have, give to people that don't have and there is no one from the government involved.  No one from local government is regulating this.  No Health and Safety 'jobsworth' is interfering.

I am sure that Labour and the other socialists would say food banks are a symptom of poverty in society but that is just plain wrong.  People will, from time to time, experience hardship and under government welfare regulations won't be eligible for taxpayer provided assistance.  What then is Labour's solution?  To not have food banks?  No, I am confident, it is that 'Government' should step in and provide.  That Labour's failed welfare policies, which made living on welfare, a career choice, are surely so discredited, as to not need to re-hash the argument, must be a given.  Certainly the tax-paying members of society have been clear in their support of the welfare reforms that have taken so many off of the welfare rolls.  Tax payers, as opposed to Labour and other socialists, know that as a country, the UK simply cannot afford the unfettered access to welfare, that is so beloved of Labour.

 Food banks are just about people interacting with other people in a positive fashion.  This is how things used to be before 'government' got so big that it came to believe that 'it' needed to be involved in everything.

Food banks though are true charity.  When you hear socialists quoting (or usually mis-quoting) Jesus Christ, they talk about his alleged re-distributive leanings but what He is really talking about is giving your 'surplus' to others.  Jesus Christ didn't say you have to give to Save the Children for them to pass on your gift, less a deduction for overheads of course, to someone else.  He didn't say you had to pass a gift to Oxfam so that they could use it to lobby on behalf of Palestinian Hamas or whomever.  I believe that Jesus Christ would look highly favorably upon food banks.  He would see their founders and voluntary workers and those that give food to them, as His true followers and as people that understand and 'get' His message.

So, don't knock food banks - they are a wonderful institution - and do give generously, especially as we enter this holiest of weeks for Christians.

Obama's revenge

Say what you like about President Obama, no one can accuse him of letting the grass grow under his feet, when it comes to settling scores.

No sooner had Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, been re-elected (read more here ) than people from Obama's team have leaked highly classified information relating to Israel's nuclear capabilities.

Be very clear, this leak was directed against Israel.  The document also contained information on Britain's and France's capabilities but these were redacted and only that on Israel, remained.

Israel has incurred the wrath of Obama because they, and particularly Netanyahu, see the dangers in treating with Iran, as with nuclear deal and, very publicly, say so.

Maybe Israel should follow the example of Iran?

Here they are, going to get a sweetheart deal that will allow them to continue with their development of a nuclear capability and will see economic sanctions lifted and yet do the Iranians sit back and take it easy?  Heavens no (or in Iran's case, hell no.)

They haven't even signed the deal with America but that hasn't stopped them from fomenting trouble and seeking regime change in Yemen.  And this is where it starts to get really dangerous.

America has withdrawn troops from a base in Yemen because they feared it might be overrun by Al Qaeda terrorists.  No Alamo type defence for Obama's boys!  They ran for the hills.  Is it any wonder when America has a President that fetes the family of a deserter, like Bowe Bergdahl?  With all the money that is spent on America's military, you have to expect that the 'top brass' must know the consequences of this and previous capitulations and yet all of those 4 stars and admirals stay silent.  They shame the uniform they wear and the brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who serve under them.
Let's assume that the military plead ignorance, for a moment.  Let them take a look to the North, to a country called Iraq.  At Obama's bidding, America ran away from here before the job was complete.  America's military leaders knew and know that this was the wrong thing to do.    The result?  In the South of the country, Iran and its stooges allowed ISIS to advance far into the country and take over large swathes of central and Northern Iraq.   I suppose Iran and their local militias figured that ISIS would focus on the North of the country but the Kurdish Peshmerga proved a far more formidable force than the 'turn tail and run' Iraqi Army and so ISIS has sought to change direction, southwards, and so started to step on Iran's toes.    And now we have the position where Iran and its local militias have tried to take Tikrit but cannot do so and in steps the US air force to bomb a path for them.  Of course, good form requires that the Iranians step back while America bombs and are not seen on the scene but don't doubt who will take the credit for ISIS' defeat.

The consequences of Obama's actions are many-fold.

Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Gulf countries can clearly see that Obama is abandoning the Gulf and allowing Iran a free rein to become the regional super-power.  These other countries have intervened in Yemen, because America ran away and because they cannot allow Iran a foothold on the Arabian peninsula.  Saudi Arabia is not in a position to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon - Obama has seen to that.  So we can now expect Saudi Arabia to get its own nuclear weapons.  Perhaps buying from Pakistan or even North Korea?  Saudi Arabia has plenty of what both of these countries need - money.

So courtesy of Obama, the Arabian Gulf will become a nuclear-armed region, in a short space of time.

Of course, will Israel sit tight and allow Iran to become a nuclear power?  Or will they bite the bullet and bomb the Iranian facilities out of existence?  Will Israel get its nuclear retaliation in, first?  Might Israel figure, that the usual opprobrium that is heaped upon them, from Arab nations, would be more than somewhat muted, given that both Israel and these Arab nations share a common enemy - their neighbor, Iran.  The Europeans would screech and moan but what else can they do?  The US?  What do Israel have to fear?  They will get no favours or benefits from America for the next two years, only more of the same from the Obama White House.  Russia will use any such event as an opportunity to expand in Ukraine and maybe even further westward.  China?  They could be bought off with Gulf oil.

Such is the crop from the seeds that Obama has sown!

Somebody on Twitter, suggested that Vice-President Joe Biden was Obama's impeachment insurance - people might consider impeaching Obama but then would look at the line of succession and abandon the notion, when they see that Biden is next in line!  Biden does have an almost perverted interest in fondling other men's wives, which would be interesting on State occasions but surely the time has come to consider him the far lesser of the two evils?

Think of the damage that Obama can do in another 20 months.  Move for articles of impeachment to be issued, now.

Well done Bibi

 The title says it all.  Well done to Benjamin Netanyahu on his success in the recent Israeli elections.

This victory was seemingly against the odds as domestic issues - the economy etc., - tended to predominate and the story was not good.  Also because, to America's shame, it seems that President Obama went out of his way to interfere in Israeli politics and to actively work against Netanyahu's re-election.

It must have really stuck in the craw, for Islam-loving Obama, to find his only non-Bibi choice was a party bearing the word Zionist in its name but he swallowed deep and followed his political teachings, where the end justifies the means.  Except that this time, his end wasn't met.  The people of Israel did not fear the wrath of Obama.  

I trust though, that they can now depend on the support of the US Congress, whom Bibi just recently addressed.  The rumour-mill has it that in retaliation or more accurately, in a fit of childish pique, Obama will now change the US' stance at the United Nations and withdraw the previously solid and constant support for Israel.  

And why is Obama doing this?  

Well it is of course because Obama is looking to seal an agreement with Iran.  He sees this as an opportunity for a legacy.  His flagship Affordable Care Act or Obamacare as it is better known, is a miserable failure.  This will end-up being repealed wholly or in part, in the next administration. The American people are seeing through the pack of lies on which it was passed.  Not least because the people that passed it and their union backers have claimed exemptions  for themselves.  It's funny how Americans whose ancestors threw off the 'yoke of a monarchy' now have to endure an elected monarchy that sets one rule for the people and then sets themselves above those same rules.  Not so much 'let them eat cake' as let them eat higher insurance premiums'!

Benjamin Netanyahu understands that the deal being mooted, is a bad deal.  In this he is supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who recognise the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran.  This isn't just an existential threat to Israel.  Iran is developing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).  The clue to their target is in the name - intercontinental.  The target is of course, the 'Great Satan' itself, the USA.  Once again, Obama is seen to be jeopardising the safety of America and Americans.  His swapping of the 5 Taliban terrorists for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl was another example. 

Obama has pussy-footed around on Syria and ISIS and in part has allowed ISIS its successes because it serves his anti-Israel and anti-America aims.  It has been left to the courageous Peshmerga forces of Kurdistan to offer any real opposition to the murderous Islamic State - which Obama still insists, isn't  Islamic!  The Peshmerga have been collecting arms from European countries but isn't being supported by the USA.  Obama prefers instead, to put minimal resources into training (again) the Iraqi army controlled by Baghdad.  This is the same army that is being supported by murderous Shia-Muslim militias.  These same militias, in recent activity, went into Sunni-Muslim tribal areas, previously controlled by ISIS and then started massacring local Sunnis.  Obama and the Baghdad government know, absolutely know, that the defeat and annihilation of ISIS in Southern Iraq, is very dependent  upon the support of Sunnis but that didn't stop them from letting the militias loose.  Is there any wonder that the Kurds want to take Mosul and Kirkuk themselves rather than leave it to the butchers from Baghdad?

It seems clear to this non-American observer, that Obama is working against the interest of the USA and its allies (sadly, a dwindling band) and it is now incumbent on the US Congress, in addition to providing support to Israel, to commence impeachment proceedings against Obama and should at the same time, use existing congressional mechanisms to de-fund Obamacare and other anti-American and anti-free enterprise legislation that has been recently passed.

Be clear, America and the World cannot successfully survive another two years of this very dangerous White House.

Do Americans still have courage? 

Budget advice for Osborne

When the last Labour government left office (doesn't that sound great - last Labour government), they left three things for the incoming Conservative administration.   A very significant deficit and debt position, a massive £600Bn PFI burden for future generations and a note from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advising 'there's no money left'.  The latter was at least honest but, as can be expected by Labour, the financial position did not inhibit them making wild spending promises in their 2010 General Election manifesto.

They also left something else.  Some ticking time-bombs in their last and penultimate budgets.  This included the imposition of a 50% top rate of tax.  This was supposed to only be for one year - that was the Labour position, when in power, but then it flipped to them wanting it in place for ever. Same old Labour - lies and hypocrisy!

So, some advice for George Osborne as he puts the finishing touches to the pre-election budget that he will deliver, next week.

Lay-out the Conservative agenda regarding taxes and spending and put these in the budget package so that they can be enshrined in law and present whichever party wins the imminent election, with a clear path forward.  If the proposals are defeated, maybe because of lack of support from the Lib Dems, then this will provide clear evidence of the tax, tax, tax desires of the opponents.

National Insurance - In order to promote the hiring of under 25s, abolish NI contributions for both employees and employers.  All parties make regular speeches talking of the need to reduce youth unemployment, so this should have no opposition - unless it's just lip service that is being paid.

Tax thresholds for OAPs.  It is plainly wrong to overtax people who have made provision for their retirement - either through pensions or savings or both.  So for all pensioners, increase the tax free allowance to £15,000 for the first £30,000 of income.  Then on income over £30,000, reduce the allowance so that for every £1 of income, the allowance is reduced by £2 until the tax free allowance of £12,500 is reached.

Tax Rates for OAPs.  Reduce the rate of tax for OAPs  to 15% on first £30,000, 30% on next £20,000 and then 40% on anything remaining.

Tax thresholds for other workers.  Increase personal allowance to £12,000 for the tax year 2015/2016 and then to £13,250 for 2016/2017 and £14,500 for 2017/2018 and £15,500 for 2018/2019 and £17,000 for tax year 2019/2020.  

Tax rates for other workers.  Reduce the basic rate of tax to 15% and the 40% rate to 38% and commit to reducing this to 36% in 2016/2017, to 34% in 2017/2018, 20 32% in 2018/2019 and 30% in 2019/2020.  Commit to abolishing the 45% rate with effect from the 2017/2018 tax year.

Non-Dom taxes - Increase the Autumn Statement announced charge from £90,000 to £150,000 in 2015/2016 and £200,000 in 2016/2017 and then £300,000 in 2017/2018.

Tax on High value homes owned by companies -  Increase the Autumn Statement announced charge from 50% above inflation to 100% in 2015/2016 and 200% above inflation in 2016/2017 and then 300% above inflation in 2017/2018.

Inheritance Tax threshold and rates - Increase the threshold from £325,000 to £500,000 with effect from 2015/2016 and to £650,000 with effect from 2017/2018 and then £750,000 from 2019/2020.  Impose a flat rate of 25% on any estate in excess of these thresholds.  Exempt all military personnel and Police, Fire and Ambulance personnel that die while on or as a result of being on, active service.

Eliminate the so called Green Taxes - these serve only to put subsidy money into the hands of rich landowners and in the process, impoverish our people.

Then to pay for this,  don't spend, don't spend, don't spend.

Reduce all budgets, across the board by 15%, with the sole exception of defence, with further cuts of 3% for the remaining life of the next parliament.  For defence, meet the commitment to get this to 2% of GDP, and then retain as this level, from 2016/2017.

The astute and economically competent will recognise that even with 15% cuts the budget won't be balanced.  So the ring-fence around NHS and Education expenditure has to be removed and these departments must contribute to the overall reduction in the reach of government.  In order to perhaps mitigate the impact on the 'blessed' NHS consider making the reduction in Local Government expenditure 20% instead of 15%.  That will be bad news for those councils that want to continue their outreach programmes for LGBT unemployed or single mothers but the whole thrust of the budget and Conservative policy must be to recognise that working people must be able to retain more of their money rather than it being taking by the government.

Abolish, completely and utterly, the Department for the Environment and Climate Change.

Also to assist the NHS, ensure that it is clear that the government will not stand as the lender of last resort behind any NHS Trust that, for example was to declare itself insolvent and unable to meet its onerous PFI payments but that were such to occur, the government would immediately intervene to establish an alternative NHS Trust which would not accept the PFI liabilities of its predecessor organisation.

Finally bring MPs back in line with the people that they represent by making the expenses that they receive, taxable, just as they are for all other 'hard-working people'.  I have never heard an explanation of why MPs should be treated differently to ordinary people!  No doubt, being taken down from the lofty levels to which they have elevated themselves,  this will upset some MPs but all MPs must first and foremost recognise that they are servants of the people not their rulers.

For Liberals and Socialists

Conservative readers might also find that this blog strikes a chord, so you too may want to read on.  The main thrust though is to pose questions for Liberals (in the American meaning) and Socialists - and all of their fellow travelers.

Listening to the TV news, this morning, I was struck by the time spent on news stories about the destruction of 3,500 year old Assyrian artefacts by ISIS.  Such destruction, by the mindless Muslim zealots who promote Islamic 'jihad' against all non-Muslims and all symbols of pre-Mohammaden era art, is not unprecedented.  The same happened in Taliban Afghanistan and in Mali.

However, my interest was more on what wasn't being reported.  There was a spokesman from UNESCO calling the destruction a war crime and then various other talking heads explaining the 'rationale' behind this.

What you didn't see though, was any linkage to the far more important destruction that is occurring, on a daily basis, in ISIS territories and also in other Muslim dominated countries.  While you will hear squeals of outrage about the destruction of these statues, you won't hear any such noise about the mass murder of Christians by ISIS.  Even the murder of homosexuals, usually such a sensitive touch-point for Liberals, evokes no outcry.  There are frequent reports of homosexual men being thrown alive from tall buildings and cliff-tops.  Where are the protests?  Christians and Yazidis are being lined-up and shot in the back of the head and their bodies pushed into mass graves, in scenes reminiscent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, but there is only muted comment.

Thinking about this, I don't believe that this can be put down to post-Charlie Hebbdo fear.  This silence pre-dates these January attacks in Paris.  Homosexuals have been being hung from crane gibbets for years by the murderous Iranian regime but the LGBT community keeps quiet.  I wrote a blog-post on this site about the changes to the UK marriage laws and how they affect homosexuals and this piece received many comments from seemingly homosexuals, who called me homophobe and yet these same people seem to stay silent in the face of the far more important than marriage rites, state-sponsored persecution and murder of homosexuals.  I guess that is what it means to be a Liberal?

Attack a comedian, who makes a risque or slightly derogatory statement about homosexuals or 'trannies' or whatever, but say nothing about what is happening in ISIS Iraq and ISIS Syria and Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  Let President Obama get away with denigrating Premier Netanyahu  when he questions the idiocy of allowing Iran to become a nuclear-armed state (and the betrayal of America's staunchest ally in the Middle East) but don't support Republicans who recognise the evil that is in power in these countries, because, 'Hey, they're republicans, right?'

I think I can kind of understand the deafening silence from Socialists.  It kind of fits with their overwhelming sense of guilt at the 'imperialist' past of the West.  Something along the lines of  'well it is a normal response because these countries have been so exploited by the West, why would we get upset when they finally throw off the imperialist yoke and hit back at us, their oppressors'  Or some such rubbish as that!  Then there is the belief that is deeply held by Socialists that all the ills of the world can be squarely laid at the feet of Capitalism and if Capitalism is destroyed and replaced with Socialism then there would be no need for religions (ref. Imagine by John Lennon) and all would live in peace (and prosperity, of course)!

What I find very puzzling and concerning though, is the silence from Christian church leaders and from Hindu leaders.  It is very disappointing that Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby have not publicly, and regularly so, denounced the persecution of Christians within the Muslim world.  To be clear, this is not a problem that is confined to ISIS areas.  Christians are being persecuted, and have been for many, many years, in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and in the countries where Arab oil money holds sway.  Egypt's Coptic community suffers daily attacks but the Liberals and Socialists and their fellow-travelers in the media, stay silent.

So I am calling for a sense of proportion.  I am upset about 3,500 year old stone statues and carvings being destroyed but I am outraged by Christians being killed because of their faith and by homosexuals being killed because of their sexual inclinations.  I am outraged that politicians and church leaders in the West do not speak out (make that scream out) more about these atrocities.  That these politicians  don't adopt a 'you've got more to lose policy' with Saudi Arabia and Iran and Egypt and Pakistan, by withholding aid, in the case of Egypt and Pakistan and perhaps more effectively by cutting off all diplomatic ties with those countries and imposing full trade sanctions, until the persecution ceases and until those countries adopt the same sort of freedom for an individual to freely practice their chosen religious faith or sexual inclination, that all people in the West enjoy - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Jedi, Buddhists, etc..

How long do you think that Egypt or Pakistan would survive without foreign aid?  Yes Pakistan would descend into chaos and, given its nuclear status, that is a concern but measures could be taken to mitigate that risk.  How long would Saudi Arabia survive if its 'princes' were denied access to the 'sinful' joys of the West?

Having read through the above, I realise that this is bordering on a rant.  No politician in the West has the courage to do the right thing and oppose militant Muslims.  They are too wrapped-up in preserving the comforts that they currently enjoy.  The media cannot be relied upon - they always look for equivalency - the CIA 'torture' terrorists with buckets of water and that is then 'matched' by ISIS burning people alive or beheading innocents, on video!  I am reminded of the quote attributed to Lenin, something along the lines of 'the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we shall hang them'.  The silence of the West in the face of the destruction of the values that have produced the greatest advances in humankind, will lead to a return to the barbarism from which Islam arose.

You should pity and weep for your children and grandchildren at the world that we bequeath to them!      

Pakistani problem with white girls

What is it with men of Pakistani origin in Britain?  I do realise that this comment and the following is very broad brush and includes all Pakistani men and that is probably unfair but, the solution to this unfairness, lies with the non-offending men from the Pakistani community.

Oh, and certain white, British males are not without fault, either!

First, the problem.

In recent years, there have been a number of high profile cases where gangs of Pakistani-origin Muslim men have engaged in wholesale abuse of young white girls.  UK Prime Minister described the events at Oxford, where the known number of cases is more than 370, as abuse on an industrial scale.  I can't recall how he described the horrors of Rotherham, where the number of victims is in excess of 1,400.  There have also been high volume cases in Oldham, Rochdale and Doncaster.

You might ask, why I mention the religion of these monsters.  Well, I would suggest that the position in which Islam places women, is a direct contributor to the actions of these criminals.  Islam places Muslim men above all others.  Women, are second-class citizens and there is no concept of equality among the sexes.  Take that a stage further and non-Muslim women are even lower down the scale.  In my view, Islam puts non-Muslim women in a position where they are fair game - a Muslim man having sex with a non-Muslim woman doesn't really register for Muslim men.  These non-Muslim women are just inferior infidels.  Take that a stage further, the idea of consensual sex doesn't come into play - these non-Muslim women are so inferior that they don't have any say in the matter.  Go further and consider that among many Islamic communities, the concept of an age of consent - 16 years of age in the UK - is absent.  We hear of what we non-Muslims would call children of 8 and 9 years old being married off to men many times their age.

So you end up with young (under-age) girls being raped (molested is just a PC way of avoiding the truth) and those that do so, do it because the moral code of their religion doesn't consider there to be anything wrong.

If the above statement is incorrect then let Muslims - men and women - prove me wrong.

Those white British males (and indeed, some females)?  They are the politicians who for years have refused to call 'a spade a spade' .  For years, these elected representatives and the social care 'professionals' and the police have adopted a 'see but not tell' policy.  They have known about this abuse.  They have known that the abuse is being perpetrated by Muslim men on under-age white girls in a clear case of racism and they have said nothing.  They have not condemned because they don't want themselves, to appear racist.   Indeed, in Oxford, the 'professionals' declared that the girls that were being abused were 'difficult'.  These are the same 'professionals' who don't even require the 'drop of a hat' to attack any male that suggests that a woman contributes to her risk of rape by dressing in a certain, provocative way but on rape of minors by Pakistani Muslims - it's the girls that are 'difficult'.

Before the usual suspects seek to deflect the argument, I do not consider that any woman ever 'contributes' to her own rape. Ever.

Can you imagine the furore that would arise if a gang of white British males, targeted under-age Muslim or Afro-Caribbean girls for raping?  The inherent racism in the targeting would be another crime to be added to the charge-sheet.  Yet, Pakistani Muslim men, get away with it.

By ignoring the ethnicity and religious background of these rapists and child abusers, politicians and police and social care professionals simply add to the public perception that these people are out of touch and do not represent the upholding of values of decency and fairness.  That, in their desire to not offend Muslims, they are pushing non-Muslims people towards political parties that pander to more extreme views.  How long before non-Muslims start to take matters into their own hands?  Before there are clashes in say, the East-end of London or some Northern towns where some Pakistani Muslims have declared the area as being subject to Sharia law and so alcohol is forbidden and all women must be veiled.  Politicians and Police need to  wake-up and start applying the law without the aid of PC blinkers!