A closing thought for today;

Racism will always exist as long as there is someone who is different from the next. How can it be possible to completely disappear as long as there is something separating people from being physically the same. It’s a shame but I think its how people have shaped our society.

opinions?

“We can’t change history,  but together we can treasure tomorrows mystery!”

-Erica

The dual threats of our time are Leftists following marxist-progressive totalitarianism and Jihadis following the tenets of Islam. What common thread might there be in our current inability to collectively recognize and challenge these threats?

Our society has been coaxed, pushed and deceived by our schools, media, and certain intellectuals to be nice, to be endlessly neutral and at an extreme to give credence beyond reason to the ‘other’ side, to be politically correct. We also may be asked to atone for some past error of thought or action. In order to become morally neutral and avoid conscious discrimination, we are asked to be totally indiscriminate; to avoid a value judgment we are asked to be valueless. We are asked to accept other ideas and cultures in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, however to do so may compromise our own beliefs, however firm or frail their condition.

I charge that those who choose (and ask the rest of us to choose) to be morally “neutral” are really choosing to be morally relative, a moral quagmire in which good could be considered bad, and bad could be considered good. And when you choose moral relativism and good equals bad, then you deny any basis for morality – for a standard of good and evil, better or worse or even good and less good. Everything is merely a point of view. Fellow travelers are encouraged to respond “Gosh, who am I to say what is right or wrong?”

The Left’s moral compass is fickle and feckless or non-existent; truth might in some instances be dismissed as inconvenient, strength as weakness, clarity as bigoted. Those who have no objective, measureable standards, who reject norms of behavior, who deny morals we usually call sociopaths, but now include Leftists. Sociopaths want no controls on themselves, leftist only want controls on others; there is but a subtle difference.

In Islam, Mohammed’s evil deeds and words are used as a standard of behavior, as a moral compass. Islam does not promote right and wrong, only that which is allowed and that which is forbidden. Islam’s standard is Mohammed whose allowed list includes misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide, and whose disallowed list includes befriending non-believers, innovation and mirth.

We as a nation and a culture must be able to embrace and defend our own core values, primarialy those rooted in Judeo-Christian traditions. We had better be willing to argue for intrinsic good and act on behalf of good or the Leftist and the Islamists will see to it that their points of view are victorious. This is an ideological battle, a trifecta of ideological battles their associated core values and standards of measure, whether virtuous or unworthy. However, if we stoop to measure the mediocrity of the Left or the evil of Islam, we miss the opportunity to make the more comprehensive choice to reject their ideology, their view point in toto. Is there really any point to arguing the minutia of whether beating your wife a little or a lot is the ‘better’ choice?

Read: Applied Moral Relativism, DL Adams, Stop Islamizaiton of America http://sioanetwork.com/?p=556

View: How Modern Liberals Think, Evan Sayet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

The lower elements of man are the primary advocates of forced equality. They work to drag down the capable so that they can reside in a world that in their eyes is a more just world, a world where capable man is forced downward and incapable man is lifted up.

They do not place the onus for betterment on the individual but make it a task for those who are effective and thus reduce capable mans place in the world to mere subsidizers of lower man. Stealing from them their freedom and their right to achieve and giving these to lower man like some kind of penance for their success.

Only in a world completely infected with psychosis could such a conception be considered charity and therefore righteous behavior for the modern man.

America’s Next Top Model

Biracial Photo Shoot

This image does not represent Biracial American’s as a whole.

I want to know your opinions?

by Shamus Cooke

Global Research, November 27, 2009 

Wading through the endless debate over health care has exhausted the patience of most Americans — the zigzags, obscure language, and long-winded discussion is inherently repulsive.

But now the dust is starting to settle, and the Congressional  vision for health care in the U.S. is emerging. Instead of being “progressive,” it will amount to a massive, corporate-inspired attack on American workers, the elderly, and the poor.

After months of confusion and delay, Congress has shipwrecked the popular energy over health care onto the jagged rock of corporate interests. More spectacularly, health care “reform” is being used as an opportunity to greatly advance corporate influence over social spheres long-dedicated to the working-class — seemingly harmless provisions carry with them enormous implications.

These devils hide in the details of the competing health care bills in Congress; both contain debilitating right-wing policies hidden within a progressive shell. Obama is indeed acting as the agent of change, to the great benefit of the U.S. corporate elite.

And although the final bill has yet to be crafted, there exists general agreements as to what the end version will look like.  Americans will be forced to buy shoddy corporate insurance with no limit to the cost, no guarantee of quality, with large premiums and other tricks to further gouge consumers.  If a public option emerges in the final bill — by no means a guarantee — it will be shrunken enough to insure very few people (2 percent of the U.S. population).

But it gets worse.  How this health care “reform” will be paid for has implications that dwarf the above atrocities.

For example, the Democrats were determined to pass a health care bill that “will not add one cent to the deficit.”  And they have succeeded: the House and Senate health care bills both plan to reduce the deficit by over $100 billion.  But a second-grader could do the math here: more service does not equal less cost — a truism that dominates the for-profit health care industry.

So how does the government plan to save billions of dollars as they “help” millions of people?

The two biggest cost saving schemes are the most damaging.  The first is the enormous attack on Medicare.  Since its inception, the corporate elite wanted this program struck down. Now they have their man for the job — a Republican could never get away with such obvious treachery.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate version of health care would cut $404 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; the house version would cut $570 billion.  The final cut could be much more.  Obama made the ridiculous claim that only “wasteful” parts of Medicare would be cut.  The truth is far different.

One way that both Congressional health care bills will gut Medicare is referred to as “forced productivity gains” — cost saving measures essentially; trimming the fat.

What are these savings? The most mentioned device — by politicians and media alike — is the reduction of “wasteful tests” and procedures that doctors routinely perform, an idea that the health care mega-corporations love. It will save them billions, while having catastrophic effects on the health care of millions of people.

For example, the recent announcement that women will now be persuaded to cut back on screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer have caused an uproar nationwide: people are correctly making the connection behind Congress’ “forced productivity gains” and the new “recommendations” that will be used by insurance companies to justify cutting these services, both of which will boost profits.  The general agreement behind rationing health care in this way will be an attack on not only Medicare, but serve as the backbone of any health care bill passed, negatively effecting everyone unable to afford luxury health care.

Another piece of Medicare that’s being trimmed is Medicare Advantage, a favorite program of the elderly because of its comprehensive services.  Premiums for this program are already rising drastically in anticipation of the health care bill’s passage, considered by Congress to be “wasteful.”  Without this program, Medicare will be greatly devalued and be more appropriately named:  “band-aides for seniors.”

Finally, The Senate health care bill attacks Medicare by reducing payments to doctors by 25 percent.  If doctors receive such a drastic reduction in pay, they will simply refuse to see Medicare or Medicaid patients; people will thus be insured only on paper.  The newly insured Medicaid patients under any new congressional bill will be sorely disappointed.

Once Medicare is undermined in the above ways, the corporate sponsored right-wing will make a very convincing argument that “Medicare doesn’t work”, leading to future cuts that will further destroy the program.

The second hidden disaster in financing a congressional health care bill is the tax on so-called “gold-plated” or “Cadillac” health insurance policies that some employers offer their workers. This tax is supposedly meant to apply to the health care policies that “elite” employees receive.

And while there should exist no complaints about taxing corporations, the motives behind this particular tax are intentionally deceiving.  As it turns out, many, if not most workers in unions will be included in this tax, which, under the Senate version, will include any plan worth more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.  Hardly elite, considering the still-soaring costs for health care.

If this provision were to pass — and it’s very popular in Congress — the immediate reaction would be very predictable: employers would immediately drop their health care plans, forcing workers into the now-forced purchasing of inadequate health care. This is why unions oppose such a plan.  California Democrat Pete Stark agrees: “Employers and insurers will reduce their benefits to avoid paying the proposed tax.”

Workers fortunate to have union contracts will be heavily pressured to concede their plans, which in the past they’ve sacrificed wage-increases to keep.  Ultimately, employers will have a new excuse not to provide health care to workers.

Obama again used his superb intelligence to totally obscure the issue in support of the tax:

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term.”  Translation:  he supports taxing the health care of union workers.

Overall, a compromise bill between the Senate and House versions will create utter disaster for the working-class.  It will not signal a progressive “step in the right direction,” as many liberals claim.  At minimum, it will be a step backward, though more likely such a bill will be an enormous regression, to a time where health care was the exclusive privilege of the wealthy.

The right-wing attacks on “Obamacare” — along with the media’s lack of questioning — have shielded the Democrats from any serious debate about the above questions, including many other concerns unmentioned here.

The trash legislation that Congress is producing is the direct consequence of the Democratic Party being dominated by giant corporations — in this case the health care industry.  The two-party system is the political system of the corporate elite, who switch party affiliations when they find it convenient; many of them throw equal money at both parties.

A crucial prop in this broken political system needs to be removed and organized under its own strength.  If the unions took their support from the Democrats, organized their members and resources into a new political party, and aggressively pushed reforms that benefited the majority of working-class Americans, U.S. democracy would be tremendously strengthened.   Medicare could not only be saved, but expanded to everyone from birth to death and be considered a fundamental human right.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Okay somebody tell me. Explain it to me. Tell me why Twilight is such a phenomenon. Tell me why a story about a girl who cannot do anything for herself, who doesn’t mind that her boyfriend kidnaps her and locks her in his room for a few days, is so wildly popular. Tell me why Edward, a man who in real life would be a manipulative and abusive person, is someone girls aspire to have as a boyfriend. It makes me sick. It makes me sad.

Not only is this book bad for young girls – why? Because it teaches them to be dependent, to believe their role is subservient, that they cannot take care of themselves, that they need a man to live, and so on- but it has become so widespread, with these very same young girls’ mothers reading the novels, and loving them.

With the release of New Moon, the story in which the sparkly Edward goes to Italy, hoping to be killed by the Volturi because he is so gosh darn depressed, I am aware of this now more than ever. Also having learned that 10% of everything Stephanie Meyer makes is tithed to the Mormon Church, thus helping fund campaigns like Prop 8, I am more disgusted than I have ever been.

I am terrified for the young girls all over the world who don’t see how detrimental this story is to their romantic health, and apparently also the future of equality in the United States. Ugh.

I have seen so much of Sarah Palin in the news over the past several weeks, I feel like I am qualified to be called one of her best friends.  Sarah Palin and her book tour have attracted the attention of almost every media outlet.  My most recent Newsweek came in the mailbox, and there she was brandishing running attire and the American flag.

One of the things I noticed in reading and hearing all of the coverage was how mean and insensitive some commentators are when talking about her.  Many are critical while others point out the weaknesses of her policies; as a whole, Palin’s been treated with disdain, even from pundits within her own party.  She is often portrayed as an airhead, opportunist, or sex symbol.

The negative press on Palin is a symptom of a deeper issue of how women are treated in the public sphere.  Consider Hillary Clinton who stands on the other side of the political aisle.  She too has been portrayed as a villain, a she-devil in a skirt.

The treatment of Palin and Clinton reveal that women are often presented as mere caricatures in the media.  I constantly remind myself that I cannot expect much more than generalizations from news organizations that are interested in ratings and the bottom line.

But I can expect Christians to treat all women with respect, dignity, and equity despite whether they agree with a woman’s politics.  It was St. Paul who said in Galatians that, “In Christ there is neither slave nor free, man nor female.”  Ours is a faith that declares Christ’s salvation for all who call him Lord and baptizes both genders.

Yet, religion sometimes finds itself on the wrong side of history when it comes to gender equality.  Christianity, among other religions, has a soiled past in its treatment of women.  Women stand in the shadows of Sinning Eve, Laughing Sarah, Murderous Jezebel, and Temptress Bathsheba.

As a result, some denominations influence women to wear clothes from head-to-toe, while others are silenced.  Just this past month, the Georgia Baptist Convention broke ties with the First Baptist Church of Decatur because the church, made up of several thousand members, called a woman to be its pastor in 2007.

One traditional belief is that Paul forbade women to speak in churches in his first letter to the Corinthians (15:33b-34).  A fuller treatment of Paul’s letter, however, proves that Paul was not so much concerned about gender as he was about power.

The church in Corinth had very strong factions in its midst.  Prestigious cliques, at least one made up of women, paraded their honor over the weak within the community.  For Paul, social decorum was the great equalizer that prevented a robust lust for power.

My deepest conviction is that women are without equality for much of the same reasons Paul wrote to the Corinthians.  Those in power do not like to see those on the margins have a respectable footing in the world; dehumanizing rhetoric insures inequality.

Women speak for themselves with clear, reasoned voices.  Sometimes despite the merit of their words and the strengths of their arguments, they are ignored or exploited by many who are content with a status quo of inequality.  All of us who are concerned with the biblical call to fashion a more just society must draw attention to the gender disparities that still exist; we must work for the full inclusion of women in life, work, and the church.

Rep. Barney Frank talks on the floor of the House about discrimination against our LGBT community. Politics is supposed to be about policy, and is supposed to be a coat-check platform, where emotion and personal ties are left at the door. But I honestly don’t believe we live in that reality any longer.

He tried, but his true self showed through. And, according to me, good on him.

Famous Quote of the Day:

Stop the Racial Profiling !

Mr. & Mrs. Loving

             The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving, a Black woman of Rappahannak, Virginia and Richard Perry Loving, a white man living in the Commonwealth of Virginia. They married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, they had to leave Virginia to get around the Racial Integrity Act, a law in the state banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. When they returned back to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. On Jan 6, 1959 the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The pshyco trial judge in the case, Mr.Bazile, reciting Johann Friedrich 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Joshua Fattal (27) - American Jew hicker in Iran

Sara Shourd   (31) - American Jew hicker in Iran 

Shane Bauer (27)-American Jew  hicker in Iran

Yaghoghil Shaolian   (19) – Local Iranian Jew 

Accused of acting against national security – Espionage

It has been 120 days since three American hikers were detained in Iran.

The trio reportedly crossed over to Iran during a hiking trip near Kurdistan Iraq.

The Iranian government has accused them of espionage.

It has been 166 days since Yaghoghil Shaolian was detained in Iran, a member of Iran’s Jewish community, was not an activist, did not join the protests, but got caught up in the moment and threw some stones at a Tehran bank branch, in central Tehran on June 14, 2009, during unrests after June 12 presidential election in Iran.

Yaghoghil was arrested, accused of acting against national security – Espionage, resulting in his conviction and was sentenced to two and half years in prison.

An international effort is seeking more information about the FOUR defendants, and will raise concerns with the Iranian authorities, since those convicted and sentenced appear to have been denied a fair trial. 

The Iranian government has accused them of espionage.

For more detailed information, photos, videos/audios, and links

click –> HEAR

and –> HEAR

International Affairs blogs & blog posts

Blog search directory

a2a_linkname=”Forgotten convicted ones – 4 Jews “;a2a_linkurl=”http://lionpuppyheart.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/forgotten-convicted-ones-4-jews/”;

digg_id = ‘digg-widget-container’; //make this id unique for each widget you put on a single page.
digg_theme = ‘digg-widget-theme2′;
digg_title = ‘Top 10 list from All Topics’;

Top Stories

we are in Canadae.ca News Blog

we are in Canadae.ca News Blog

if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget(‘a7ee487f-e182-40de-a186-62a2f2699787′);Get the Diamond Taxi Veteran Driver Stories widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget(‘32dfbcd0-4423-4f52-bbfa-07071cd4d596′);Get the Diamond Taxi Veteran Driver Stories widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget(‘0a9f0a83-14c2-4e5d-8d58-7ee60e5da65b’);Get the IRAN FREEDOM widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget(‘7dc38642-b32f-4713-852d-68c60c0c7fe9′);Get the Press TV widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)

Blog Search Engine

we are in Canadae.ca News Blog

Canadae: Canada’s search engine

But, we’re perfect in our imperfections. Someone said that to me one time in answer to my question of why people do bad things.

Why do people do bad things? Why is it that sometimes we even KNOW that its bad, and we still can’t stop ourselves from doing it. The next question is, who decided that it was bad?

I’m just going to let you pause for a moment to absorb that last question…

Did someone a long time ago make a list of “rights” and “wrongs,” and then sell the package to mainstream earth? Or did it come about organically, based on the consensus of the times and the needs of the people?

I’ve noticed that in the last 100 years the definitions of what is “right and wrong” has certainly evolved. Funny, similar concept with me… And you? Have you found that your ideas about what are right and wrong have grown, changed, mutated, become blurry or otherwise as you have enjoyed and detested the world around you? As the hair on your head becomes thinner and the inevitable grays become thicker, are the ideas and beliefs thinning and thickening as well?

In the early 1900’s, us women were choosing to have full and equal responsibilities as that of men. At some point, that choosing became demanding and the demanding became fighting for our rights for equality. In the 1960’s, Black Americans stood up and fought for their rights. Currently, Gay Americans are demanding equality as well, and thankfully starting to actually make some headway! Years back, this wouldn’t have even been thought possible. People wouldn’t have even thought twice about bigotry towards women, minorities, and homosexuality. But now, people are coming together and demanding a new precedent be set for what is “right and wrong”! I am thrilled to see justice be served and our brothers and sisters be given opportunities that never should have been excluded from them in the first place!

So, right and wrong… What is it that you have to be so dog-gone right about, right now? Because maybe someday very soon, you’ll change your mind.

She was beaten. Tortured. Raped. Sodomized. Hung from a ceiling. The man she was married to on several occasions tried to manipulate her into committing suicide. He battered her with his words, his fists and whatever object he could find in the heat of a moment. He tried to drown her.

Kamal Dhillon’s new book “Black and Blue Sari” is a glimpse into the darkest hell of abuse and domestic violence. It’s hard to read her story. I can’t even imagine living it.

And yet Kamal is alive to tell the story. She has survived beautifully and courageously. She’s even had the guts to go back into that dark story and write it.

In doing so–in being willing to go back and open the door into the most violent, degrading, humiliating abuse–Kamal allows us into a world that very few of us can imagine. Kamal brings us into her hell, so that we may walk out of there and take a stand against the violence happening in our midst.

Kamal’s body has been broken so many times and in so many places and yet her spirit is strong. She is a fighter and her story is now an important tool in the saving of the lives of many. She truly believes she has survived, so she may now tell this story and change the fate of other women.

Too many still suffer at the hands of their partners. In the past five years 653,000 Canadian women reported being a victim of spousal violence, with 26% of these women being assaulted more than ten times. (See the RAVE website for more resources.)

“We can all help the silent victims by raising our voices against violence,” says Kamal.

Here’s an excerpt from Black and Blue Sari:

“One evening, I was so exhausted from being pushed around, having my hair pulled and my face squeezed that I decided to fight back verbally … I was beaten regardless of whether I spoke or remained silent. So this particular day I decided to get beaten and not feel gulty. I told him what a monster he was. I said he was a lowlife who had no guts to fight with a man his own size but only with a woman half his size. He pushed me so hard into the concrete wall. I felt dizzy for a while but continued hitting back with my words while crying loudly. I told him how much I regretted marrying him and told him that I knew that he and his family had deceived me. They had portrayed themselves to everyone to be something that they were not.
While I was lying on the floor recovering from the beathing, Raj began to kick me continuously. By now, Hannah and Tony had run into the bedroom and shut the door. Those poor children did not deserve that kind of father. I wanted to tell them to run and call the police from the neighbour’s phone. But then the police were useless. They had done very little for me before. Once a police officer told me to behave like an Indian woman; I was no longer in Canada. Most of the top police officers were close friends of Raj’s family. They also had a close relationship with people in high places. Some of the officers felt sorry for me, but they couldn’t do anything. They feared for their jobs.

After continuing the kicking and punching for some time, Raj did the unimaginable—he urinated all over me. I looked up at this sick man and asked him why he didn’t just kill me. I called him as many names as I could possibly think of. I began to curse him and said I wished he had never been born. I received more punches and blows, but I continued to speak my mind. He beat me until he grew tired. I always knew when he was getting tired. He would begin to nurse his hands. He told me to get up and clean up the mess. Then I was allowed into the bedroom for the night, but I had to sleep on the floor.”

Sometimes it’s good to get a glimpse of what a real hell looks like. It reminds me, for one, to work harder at carving out heaven here on earth on behalf of women like Kamal.

Book Launch:
Kamal will launch her book tomorrow on Saturday, November 28 at 2pm at Grace Point church, 3487 King George Hwy, South Surrey. Copies will be available for purchase.

Further resources:

While Namibia holds the country’s fourth general and presidential elections today, the rest of the world will be waiting to see who voters show up to cast their ballots for.

The election is predicted to bring in over one million voters to over 3,200 polling stations around the country, most of which will be moving around to reach the remote areas of the region.

The Namibian wrote that in a report on the election, Standard Bank’s economist Jan Duvenhage said, “Internationally, Namibia is already classified as a “flawed democracy… any additional slippage in the global democracy stakes will be a cause for concern.”

Currently Namibia is ranked 64th out of 167 countries on the latest Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), receiving an overall score of 6.48 out of a possible ten points.

Rally for Democracy and Progress is expected to pose the main opposition to South West African People’s Organization, the current ruling party in Namibia is expected to.  Something had has not gone unnoticed by Swapo who has filed a $13 million defamation lawsuit the country’s opposition party.

According to Bloomberg.com, Swapo “… alleged that RDP leader Hidipo Hamutenya had damaged its reputation by claiming the party rigged previous elections when he addressed a rally in the northern town of Okongo this month.”

Nonetheless, a violent election is not expected. In IPS Graham Hopwood, political analyst and director of the Institute for Public Policy Research said, “Namibian elections are mostly peaceful, we don’t foresee surprises.” But even without violence, the BBC reports the National Society for Human Rights does expect attempts at poll rigging.  They report the NSHR as stating, “.. the voters’ roll includes constituencies that have been listed twice, voters who have been listed twice and under-age people – a discrepancy of about 180,000 voters.” The NSHR are now being allowed to observe the presidential and parliamentary ballots at the numerous polling stations by the Namibian courts.

And finally, gender activists are afraid the election will lower the current female representation in the government from 30.8 percent to roughly 25 percent, a drop that will impede the region’s goal of 50 percent female representatives in politics by 2015.

“In their manifestos parties enshrine equal opportunities for men and women, but when the candidate list comes out, it’s dominated by men,” says Sarry Xoagus-Eises, country organizer for non-governmental organization that promotes gender equality, to IPS.

Results of the election are expected to be posted Sunday morning outside polling stations.

Yesterday Malcolm pointed the finger at Michael White’s unfortunate typo. That by-passed the wholly valid conclusion of White’s original piece (to which we shall return shortly).

Cameron got it wrong with his attempt to smear a couple of local authorities and the government with a scare about nursery schools linked to terrorism. Most of us knew or guessed that was a wrong’un at the time. Hizb ut-Tahrir were identified for a ban after the London atrocities. A Christmas Eve, 2005, Observer article, with a Gaby Hinscliff by-line, described why that didn’t happen:

Plans to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, the radical Islamic group, have been dropped in the past few days following intense discussions between Number 10 and legal advisers. Counter-terrorism sources said Tony Blair had been warned that banning the group, which campaigns for Britain to become a caliphate – a country subject to Islamic law – would serve only as a recruiting agent if the group appealed against the move.

The sub-text there is that Hizb ut-Tahrir and all its works are on a very tight string to the securocrats. Yet Cameron blundered on.

Scapegoat time!

Which makes it Michael Gove’s turn to be fed to the reptiles. As he duly was in today’s Times:

Mr Gove unwittingly fed his leader a stinker. Mr Cameron had asked his trusted ally to help him to flesh out an attack on Labour’s failure to tackle extremist Muslim groups.

Seeing that two schools linked to Hizb ut Tahrir had received cash from the Early Years Pathfinder scheme which funds free nursery places, Mr Gove had mistakenly thought that it was part of the Preventing Violent Extremism pathfinder project that is supposed to tackle indoctrination. In fact the two schemes are entirely separate. The error meant that Mr Cameron was simply wrong to declare that the schools were receiving cash from an “anti-extremist” fund when he faced Mr Brown across the dispatch box.

The gaffe was all the more painful for the Tory leader because he had overruled a suggestion that all the key information be double-checked.

Flash Dave

Now that’s the same point Michael White considered the previous day:

Dave and Mike did something careless for which Tony Blair would have put them through the verbal mincer…

You can hear Blair silkily observing that “I don’t need any lessons from the right honourable gentleman about associating with extremist groups who get public funds,” can’t you? He’d have then got stuck into those dodgy Poles and Balts whom Skinhead Billy rounded up to form Dave’s new group of not-federalist-not-nice-either MEPs at Strasbourg.

Does it matter? Not a lot. But it’s a reminder that, repeated on a general election platform, with public emotions running high, a bad mistake is an amplified mistake. Being manifestly unfair to any particular group – except perhaps those brazen bankers – runs the risk of offending fair-minded people.

White winds up, extrapolating this Cameron line into:

you can’t help noticing a smell familiar to older readers: red-baiting.

Cameron in debate is remarkably sloppy (he proudly spent his time with the Bullingdon, not in the Union). Brown, by comparison, sticks far too closely to Citrine and Standing Orders. Because Cameron is allowed to get away with this fast-and-loose stuff, he pushes the limits further each time.

This was Cameron’s final sally in PMQs on 11th November:

Mr. Cameron: This Prime Minister told us, “No more boom and bust”, yet he presided over the biggest boom and the biggest bust; he told us that we were the best prepared for the recession, yet, unlike others, we are still in recession. He has given us the fastest rising unemployment and the biggest bust. Take the official figures for public spending, take off what you are planning to spend on unemployment benefit and on debt, and departmental spending is being cut by 0.7 per cent. The Prime Minister asks about policy; we have said what we would do about public sector pay and pensions. We have the courage of our convictions; the Prime Minister has neither courage nor convictions.

Grammarians and debaters will note that was supposed to be a “question”. One looks in vain for the question mark, or even the question indirect. Instead, the Speaker allowed Cameron to get away with a statement.

Watch this space

This is overweening pride, riding for a fall. Remember: you got fair warning of that from Michael White … and Malcolm Redfellow.

Original Caption:

Three young ladies picket in front of a huge cutout of blonde Marilyn Monroe at the Grauman’s Chinese Theater where “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” is showing. Pickets, left to right: Avis Kimball, Lillian Pacino and Evelyn Bernard.

via