Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Comment is free

“Draw Mohammed”: Summary

In this fight to retain our freedom, which is the root of the Garland flap, Shari’ah Law and Islamicisation of the West are the adversary. But the principles for which we fight are just as much if not more at risk in the project to Fundamentally Transform the Whole World into some Marxist-Leninist-Progressivist nightmare, and the means by which we fight Islamicisation are to be applied also in this other, all-encompassing fight.

As for the present instance: If we held such events as “Draw Mohammed” every month (but responsibly, as the Garland event was held); if we met every attempt at intimidation by being unimpressed, for instance if our own papers had published the Danish cartoons; such actions would show our enemies that we mean what we say, we will stick by it, we will stand by our principles and defend them in word and deed. If the enemy then wants to impose his will on us by force, by terrorism and war, he will have at least some evidence that we will not run from the fight, fearfully and virtuously clucking our disapproval of it.

With luck he might conjecture that while we would prefer not to meet force with force, we certainly will do so if it is necessary in order for us to live our lives as free men and women and not as serfs or slaves who are at the disposal of other human beings and who are allowed to exist only at their pleasure; and that if we are forced to war in self-defense, we have more than enough strength of will to prevail.

In the ’30′s, Britain and France telegraphed their reluctance to face the facts and to defend themselves against force with force. The guy with the moustache picked up the message and calculated that he could get away with it…and almost did.

How many times must we repeat the same mistake!

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 6: Closing Arguments

The following points have been made by the Prosecution against Pamela Geller (hereinafter, “P.G.”). Each point is followed by rebuttal from the Defense.

1. P.G. held the event specifically to provoke Muslims.

She did not. The underlying point of the event was to EXERCISE freedom of speech in a way that would show that Americans are serious about protecting it. I point out that this is true regardless of whether that freedom is under attack by Islam, the PC crowd, or anybody else … and there are lots of “anybody else’s,” as I hope the various video clips have shown.

But in particular, we in the West are being undermined by capitulating to various strictures of Shari’ah, in this case that one must not even draw the Prophet, let alone criticize, let alone mock him. P.G.’s direct and immediate point in the event was to show that we are determined NOT to “submit” to that stricture.

There is a second point to the event that is equally important, and that is to bring the situation of “creeping Shari’ah,” in this case Shari’ah against Freedom of Speech, into broad public awareness, so that “we” will become not just a few hundred thousand or a few million resisters, but the bulk of the American people: hundreds of millions of resisters.

2. The event predictably invited and incited violence against AFDI, the attendees, and the American public generally. P.G. should, must, have known this, and therefore should not have put others at risk by holding it.

P.G. was well aware that there might be a violent response. That is why she provided additional security forces to the tune of some $37,000 – $ 50,000, according to different published claims.

But in fact no Muslims were forced to respond violently. They chose to do so of their own free will. Miss Geller responds, “This is the same argument as the one claiming that the rape victim is responsible for her being raped because she wore a short skirt.”

(This argument has actually been made often enough against those who claim to have been raped, but the fact is that is both illegal and morally wrong to rape anybody for any reason, even if the victim did intentionally wear a short skirt in a dangerous neighbourhood. We rightly hold the rapist accountable just the same.)

3a. P.G. has the right, specifically the legal, First-Amendment right, to hold the event and say what she wants, but she should not have done it [this may be express or only implied, by the question "…but should she have?"].

This amounts to devaluing all previous statements of defense. It’s like “damning by faint praise.”

(Look for a posting about this line of thought at some point, because there is a good impulse behind it as well as the cowardly refusal to give a fully-committed defense in public.)

3b. Besides, this type of speech, this type of event, “even if it’s allowed, it shouldn’t be done, because it has no value, this type of discussion at this type of event.” Megyn Kelly asks Eugene Volokh to comment on this claim, at 7:09 in their video in Part 5.

Prof. Volokh replies [boldface mine]:

“Well, surely this kind of discussion does have value, it has value in debate about Islam and about the role of Islam and about the action of some Muslims, fortunately only a small portion of Muslims to these kinds of things.

But beyond that, it has value as a re-affirmation of our free-speech rights, it has value as an act of defiance, it has value as people saying “look, we are not going to be shut up. When you tell us that we cannot draw pictures of Mohammed, when you tell us that we cannot say these things or else you’ll kill us, that just means we’re gonna [sic] do it again and again to show that you can not threaten Americans into submission. …. The whole point of this was to say, “You cannot tell Americans, you cannot tell a free people what [they] can and cannot say.” And that’s a very important message to say, especially in times like these.”

I have heard people saying … it’s too provocative. Well, look, there are times when First Amendment rights have to be defended. And they have to be defended by saying [we're] going to say these things even though we realize there’s a risk of violence, even though we realize there’s a risk of attack. The only way we can protect our free-speech rights is by re-asserting our free-speech rights.

By “re-asserting,” Prof. Volokh means showing the existence of the right by using it.

I note that it is up to the Courts through their rulings, and up to us as American (and Western) individuals through our words and actions, to confirm publically the existence of the right and our insistence on not being intimidated into being silenced, on this or any other issue.

4. The event shows that P.G. is “racist,” an Islamophobe, and hates all Muslims.

Horsefeathers. It shows that Miss Geller is aware of the threat from jihadists of both the violent sort and the lawfare/public-condemnation-public-opinion sort, and is fully committed to resisting both.

5. Cartoons at the event clearly are obscene and mock the Prophet.

I haven’t seen any of the cartoons from the contest except Bosch Fawstin’s winning one, which is certainly not obscene in any way. It does call attention to the fact that Mohammed lacks the power to enforce obedience to his command, and I suppose that might be a form of “mockery” in that shows him as “full of sound and fury,” but powerless.

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 5: The Defense

A few, a very few, on Fox and elsewhere have seen fit to defend Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest and the Garland, Tex. Free Speech convention in a fully-committed way, that gets to the heart of the issue and the real meaning of the event and the of the terrorist response; as well as to the MSM’s capitulation to Shari’ah’s objective of silencing opposition, as shown by their finger-wagging and jaw-flapping character assassinations. Among them are Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly in the clips below. Each is in two parts, and each is enlightening.

Hannity, Pamela Geller: with Brendan Darby of Breitbart, who was on the scene, shortly after the shooting. (The uploader says 11 a.m. Eastern, 5/4/15, but there’s no statement that that’s when the recording was made.)

Hannity, Pamela Geller: “Mainstream Media Rewarding Jihad Terror,” with clips from various MSM nasties pontificating:

Megyn Kelly, with Eugene Volokh, who points out the practical value of the event as a part of our defense of free speech:

Megyn Kelly follows up with Alan Dershowitz and Rich Lowry, who concur with the bottom line. She makes the core point in her opening:

UPDATE: I think it would be good to let Miss Kelly and Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, Stop Islamisation [sic] of America, and AFDI, make another very important point.

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 4: Flak

Some of the milder MSM videos in which Pamela Geller takes heavy fire from the “I believe in free speech, but…” crowd.

There are probably more here than anybody has the stomach for, and these are not the really nasty ones! But although the bottom line is the same in all, each differs somewhat in points made or in facts presented or both, so I think I will give you three from Fox, one from CNN, and one from ABC. To close, Senator Rand Paul weighs in, and finally leftist lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

“Judge Jeanine” Pirro, Fox:

In opening her show on May 9, “Judge Jeanine” defended free speech strongly, even including Miss Geller’s right to hold her Free Speech event. But she ended her remarks by saying ‘that she thought Geller’s event, which was attacked by two gunmen last weekend, was probably a “dumb move,” which is pretty much all the critics of it are saying,’ as the video’s uploader observed.

Martha MacCallum, Fox:

O’Reilly, Donald Trump (!), Laura Ingraham, Fox:

Greta van Susteren, Fox: Never mind, you get the idea.

Alisyn Camerata, CNN:

Jake Tapper, ABC:

. . .

Senator Rand Paul.

With Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck Program:

With Megyn Kelly, Fox. Most of this is about the Iraq War and the Patriot act. Segment on “Draw Mohammed” begins about 6:46.

Raymond Arroyo, Alan Dershowitz, “Free Speech Limits,” EWTN:

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 4a: Flak — Prologue

Coming up: Just a few of the millions of clips out there tsk-tsking Miss Geller’s Free Speech Event and “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, Texas, the first weekend in May.

To set the stage:

Peace Offering

Banco.Peace Offering.Cartoon.("Now will you be nice to us?") showing Geller,P.'s head offered to Radical Islam by an appeaser

Pam Geller is being attacked by the “I’m for free speech , but…” crowd, and the mainstream media as though she’s worse than ISIS, again, blaming the victim to fit their narrative. Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2015.

“Note: You may re-post this cartoon provided you link back to this source. More A.F. Branco cartoons at Patriot Update here.

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 3: The Speeches

Here are the speeches* presented at the Garland, Texas Free Speech Convention on May 3, 2015. (It was as people were leaving the building that evening that two Muslim terrorists attacked them, fortunately hurting no one but themselves.) In order below: Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Bosch Fawstin following an introduction by Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer, and closing remarks from Miss Geller. Many good points, and of course the overarching/cornerstone point.

Pamela Geller, Opening Speech:

Geert Wilders speech:

Bosch Fawstin acceptance speech, Robert Spencer speech at 8:10, Pamela Geller closing speech at 16:10.

*If there were any other speeches, I have neither seen nor heard any reference to them. Nor do I know what other activities there were during the Conference.

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 2: The Occasion

“I think there needs to be a change to the law where people do not disrespect especially high people,” Texas Imam Mobasher Ahmed said.

So there you have it — I am not saying it, a Texas imam is. This is the the objective and what I fight against. The media has already submitted to sharia restrictions on free speech and viciously enforced the ban against violators (like myself).

I am not a Muslim. I will not adhere to sharia (Islamic law) and its restrictions on free speech (and freedom).

The reporter for this story sounds surprised that we have supporters and that they own up to it. It’s like Bill O’Reilly on his show tonight. O’Reilly refused to release results from his AFDI Muhammad cartoon poll. He said it was “slammed” in OUR favor, so there for “untrustworthy”.

Thus Pamela Geller, slightly edited for typos, in her Description under a 3-minute news clip.

Pamela Geller is considered a heroine by some and the Devil Incarnate by others. Her cause*: To defend America and the West generally against the encroachment of political Islam as it is today: To fight against Shari’ah as part of the American (and the UK’s, and by extension the West’s) legal system. Her chosen battle field in this fight is the defense of freedom of speech in general.

Of course a part of any defense against political Islam is the fight against Islamic violence. The defense of freedom of speech requires among other things that such violence must not be allowed to cow Americans or anyone else into submission to the Ummah or any part of it. Miss Geller’s thought is that one must face force and resist it, or be complicit in one’s own condition of dhimmitude or slavery.

So, Mohammed thunders: “You can’t draw me!” And Mr. Fawstin replies, “That is why I draw you.” Mohammed is wrong: One certainly can draw him, if one will only exercise his right to draw Mohammed by making the drawing.

We say to Mohammed: You have no power over me.

This series of postings presents material pertaining to the Free Speech Conference organized by Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative (dreadful name — better, “American Initiative for the Defense of Freedom). It was held in Garland, Tex., this past May 2-3.

The event included a “Draw Mohammed” competition, which was won by Bosch Fawstin, whose cartoon is shown in Part 1. Mr. Fawstin grew up as a Muslim in a Muslim family, but he found the misogyny and other factors of his Muslim childhood impossible to accept, and in the end became a former Muslim, an apostate. (I think he’s now an atheist, but probably you cats know more about that than I do.)

As well as the competition, there were at least four speeches given at the event, by Miss Geller, Geert Wilders, Mr. Fawstin, and Robert Spencer, along with a short closing by Miss Geller. I believe that is the order in which they were given, but I can’t prove it. Nor do I know what other seminars or workshops or whatever were a part of the meeting.

However, the meeting ended sometime in the evening (I gather, from news video) of Sunday, May 3. As the crowd of more than 300 people were leaving the venue, two Muslim terrorists opened fire on them. As it happened the Garland police were there and killed the two.

Because of an unnamed officer’s quick thinking, quick draw-and-fire, and accurate aim, none of the attendees was hurt.

*Miss Geller also has fought to defend the physical victims of Islam, such as the many young girls subjected to or under threat of Shari’ah murder, and also the hundreds of thousands of Christians and Jews being slaughtered around the world for the crime of not being Muslim. But that is a topic for another time.

[Edit: Two typos fixed, and one sentence reworded for clarity.]

Greek Tragedy.

This is a modest proposal as to what to do with Greece.

We, Europe, foreclose on the entire shooting match of shit and auction it. We could solve the entire Elgin Marbles stuff by “buying” the Parthenon in toto and sticking them back onto it in the O2 Arena. At least it would prevent One Direction gigs. It is win-win.

Other creditors could take pro-rata and the rest we auction. I wouldn’t fancy Erdogan’s Turkey taking the gaff but a normal secular Turkish regime would be OK. The Russians are absolutely verboten not least because they got their warm water port after nicking the Crimea. And I don’t want the Putinocrasy spreading West. I want that bar-steward house-elf shot in the rectum. The rectum*.

So… China for the Hellenic yard-sale? The EU writes off debts to China and the Chinese get “Hong Kong West”. I see great trade deals for all and the Greeks get a government that might, might be able to get a fuck in a Danish dog brothel with a sack of sausages. Because the current bellendege of gits that is the Greek government (and I am especially including the uncivil service) couldn’t get a tug-off at a crack-fuelled Bonobo orgy – in Vegas – with Bon Jovi headlining. And nibbles.

So that is my modest proposal. Sell Greece.

I had this idea in the shower. The best ideas come to me in the shower. I guess washing my hair ain’t pulling too many cycles of the Nick CPU.

*”Rectum, damn near killed him”. Works best in a Geordie accent. And apparently it is common amongst the Russian mafia to execute folks with a shot up the Johnson Pickles. And if Putin isn’t Capo di tutti capi then I’m Pope Gregory the fucking Ninth.

Sometimes they say it better than me…

From Jihad Watch. This is good.

Chloe Valdary concludes this terrific piece by saying, “It is of course your prerogative to continue to utilize platitudes for your cause. You are entirely within your rights to chant words like ‘equality’ ‘justice’ and ‘freedom fighter.’ You can keep using those words for as long as you like. But I do not think you know what they mean.” Indeed. Or maybe they know full well what they mean, and want to confuse and manipulate people into no longer being sure, so they can more easily claim them for themselves.

“To the Students for Justice in Palestine, a Letter From an Angry Black Woman,” by Chloe Valdary, Tablet, July 28, 2014 (thanks to Linda):

The student organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is prominent on many college campuses, preaching a mantra of “Freeing Palestine.” It masquerades as though it were a civil rights group when it is not. Indeed, as an African-American, I am highly insulted that my people’s legacy is being pilfered for such a repugnant agenda. It is thus high time to expose its agenda and lay bare some of the fallacies they peddle.

• If you seek to promulgate the legacy of early Islamic colonialists who raped and pillaged the Middle East, subjugated the indigenous peoples living in the region, and foisted upon them a life of persecution and degradation — you do not get to claim the title of “Freedom Fighter.”

• If you support a racist doctrine of Arab supremacism and wish (as a corollary of that doctrine) to destroy the Jewish state, you do not get to claim that the prejudices you peddle are forms of legitimate “resistance.”

• If your heroes are clerics who sit in Gaza plotting the genocide of a people; who place their children on rooftops in the hopes they will get blown to bits; who heap praises upon their fellow gang members when they succeed in murdering Jewish school boys and bombing places of activity where Jews congregate — you do not get to claim that you are some Apollonian advocate of human virtue. You are not.

• If your activities include grieving over the woefully incompetent performance by Hamas rocketeers and the subsequent millions of Jewish souls who are still alive — whose children were not murdered by their rockets; whose limbs were not torn from them; and whose disembowelment did not come into fruition — you do not get to claim that you stand for justice. You profess to be irreproachable. You are categorically not.

• If your idea of a righteous cause entails targeting and intimidating Jewish students on campus, arrogating their history of exile-and-return and fashioning it in your own likeness you do not get to claim that you do so in the name of civil liberty and freedom of expression.

• You do not get to champion regimes that murder, torture, and persecute their own people, deliberately keep them impoverished, and embezzle billions of dollar from them—and claim you are “pro-Arab.” You are not.

• You do not get to champion a system wherein Jews are barred from purchasing land, travelling in certain areas, and living out such an existence merely because they are Jews — and claim that you are promoting equality for all. You do not get to enable that system by pushing a boycott of Jewish owned businesses, shops, and entities — and then claim that you are “against apartheid.” That is evil.

• You do not get to justify the calculated and deliberate bombings, beatings, and lynchings of Jewish men, women, and children by referring to such heinous occurrences as part of a noble “uprising” of the oppressed—that is racism. It is evil.

• You do not get to pretend as though you and Rosa Parks would have been great buddies in the 1960s. Rosa Parks was a real Freedom Fighter. Rosa Parks was a Zionist….

She shoots. She scores. That is serious back of the net.


This comment fell foul of a CiF censor.

Mankind has a long history of people who were absolutely convinced that survival depends on everyone else adopting their belief system.

Steven Goddard at Real Science.

The truth will set you free at loggerheads with greenie Graunie gatekeepers.  It makes you wonder what these people are afraid of.


The Guardian’s CiF writer Lemn Sissay is advocating what can only be described as apartheid. Oh and he also launches into a deranged (and irrelevant) rant on gollywogs and refers to children as “resources”. It’s truly a class act!.

Britain’s Intellectual Elite

I tend to avoid the Graun’s ironically-titled Comment is Free, but Helen at Your Freedom and Ours linked to this article by Jonathan Freedland about the Left’s eugenicist past and I thought it’d be an interesting read. It was.

But the comments

Oh, my good lord. I’ve never seen so much intellectual arrogance from people so little entitled to display it in my life. That Freedland’s evidence is dismissed without coherent argument goes without saying (Shaw and the Webbs weren’t socialists, apparently), but it doesn’t end there. If you fancy a quiet Sunday afternoon clutching your head in fear of your brains running out of your ears, click the link. A pseudonym (from the Greek ψευδώνυμον, “false name”) isn’t a pseudonym if everyone knows it, associating the Left with authoritarianism is “willfully obtuse” (but Ayn Rand, oh she was authoritarian)… the parade of misinformed claptrap, delivered in that confident, withering, tone so beloved of Leftists, is almost endless. Of course, it goes without saying that eugenics is perfectly fine by a fair number of them.

And people wonder why everything’s fucked.

The Great and the Good

Darwin was a geologist. Does this mean his opinions on biology should be ignored?

NEWSPAPERS should refrain from publishing the opinions of average Australians, academic Robert Manne has said.

Professor Manne says they should report only the views of a "core" of experts in key debates.

At a book-signing in Sydney last night, he also urged the media to embrace greater contributions from controversial left-wing commentators such as US linguistics professor Noam Chomsky and Beirut-based commentator Robert Fisk.

Professor Manne is facing fierce criticism over his recently published Quarterly Essay, Bad News, in which he alleges that The Australian plays an "overbearing" and "unhealthy" role in national debates by publishing fringe views on controversial topics.

Professor Manne, who described climate change as the most serious threat facing the planet, has said only experts within the "core" of the scientific consensus should be heard.

"I do not believe it makes sense for non-scientists to have views on scientific issues," he told the gathering at Gleebooks, in inner Sydney.

"They should get scientists in the consensual core to debate it, but that would be so boring."

Folie à douche

The Grauniad’s Wintour and Watt blog reports that:

Former PM believes he could still be in No 10 if new allegations relating to Andy Coulson had emerged before the election

The blog post headlines with:

Gordon Brown: I’d still be PM if hacking claims had been aired earlier

That’s right.  The former Prime Mentalist believes that he lost the election because details of Coulson’s alleged phone hacking were suppressed and not because he was a totally useless twat who wrecked the economy and sold us down the festering  EUSSR creek we hated his incompetent and worthless fucking guts.  So let’s see what the Grauniad blog warriors have to say.

Gordon Brown has been experiencing mixed emotions this week.

Translation:  Brown’s been chucking around iPads, iPods, laptops and tablets as well as Nokias.  Maybe his new dummy as well.

One side of him has felt what can best be described as a sense of Schadenfreude as he watches the pressure pile up on Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch.

It doesn’t even begin to match the sense of revulsion I experienced as I witnessed the damage this pin-headed, shit-for-brains freak inflicted on the UK.

Brown has never, and will never, forgive the pair for the brutal manner in which they withdrew the Sun’s support for Labour before the last general election. The former prime minister always knew he would struggle to retain the red top’s support. But pulling the plug on Labour in the autumn of 2009 on the evening of his last speech to the Labour conference before the general election was seen as a deeply hostile act.

So it isn’t about Coulson and the phone hacking then.  It’s about petty revenge.  Labour was perfectly happy to hitch its dilapidated wagon to the Murdoch ox despite the hacking scandal.  It wasn’t until Murdoch’s change of editorial policy that Brown began stamping his feet and scweaming and scweaming until we were all sick.

But Brown is not enjoying any sweet taste of victory because his over-riding emotion is one of regret. He believes that had the latest set of allegations been aired 18 months ago he might well still be prime minister.

That’s because, to borrow a very appropriate phrase, he’s nucking futz.

It might seem slightly far-fetched to believe that alleged law breaking at Britain’s largest Sunday tabloid newspaper, even if it supports the Tories, could have changed the result of the election. But here is his logic.

Only slightly far-fetched?  In the same way that the Pope is only slightly catholic perhaps?  Your stupidity bias is showing, boys.

Had two of this week’s key developments become public at the turn of 2009/10 then the electorate’s doubts about David Cameron might have hardened into outright rejection. Brown believes those doubts explain the Tories’ failure to secure an overall majority.

That load of retarded bollocks is so hairy you could make a sporran out of it.  Cameron failed to achieve an overall majority because he was perceived to renege on his ironically called “cast iron” promise regarding a Lisbon Treaty (EU) referendum.  And even had the scandal broke early all Cameron had to do was sack Coulson and do what any slimy politician worth his salt would do, distance himself from the issue at the speed of light.  The country was so fucking sick of low-Brownism they would have voted for a lump of dog shit.  Which is more or less what happened.

The two disclosures – the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and News International’s admission that payments were made to police – raise questions for Andy Coulson, Cameron’s communications chief from 2007 to January this year. Coulson was NOW’s deputy editor at the time that Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked and News International let it be known this week that it had passed emails to the police suggesting he was aware of the police payments.

All of which happened under Labour’s watch while they were cosying up with News International and stroking Murdoch’s wrinkley member.

Brown believes the appearance of these allegations 18 months ago would have led to Coulson’s immediate resignation. That would have led to questions about Cameron’s judgment in hiring Coulson. These questions are being asked now. But Brown believes that Cameron would have faced far more pressure in the immediate period before a general election. Voters, who were unsure about the Tories, would have turned away from Cameron, according to the Brown thinking.

Personally I’m more interested in Labour’s equally questionable love affair with the Murdoch press before Rupe kicked them in the balls.  Brown should be down on his knees thanking God for the Wapping bastard’s infidelity. But then, Brown’s not the one who broke it off, is he…

The former prime minister developed a close interest in the phone hacking scandal after the Guardian disclosed in July 2009 that News International had paid more than £1m to settle cases that threatened to reveal widespread phone hacking. Patrick Wintour and I recently reported that a few months later, after the News of the Worldand the Sun abandoned their support for Labour, Brown sought to hold a judicial inquiry into the allegations. This was blocked by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, on the grounds that it would be too sensitive before the election.

A close interest, eh?  I’ll just bet he did.  And Sir Gus pulled the plug.  Possibly because hypocritical Brown only called for a judicial enquiry after being dumped so conspicuously by Murdoch.  Before that, while they all were defecating in the same pot, he’d kept judiciously schtum.  Throwing his dummy out of the pram with such bitter public resentment would have raised too many eyebrows and too many questions about Brown’s, and therefore Labour’s, pisspoor judgement and (non existant) veracity.

And who was the decisive voice in persuading Cameron that at least one of the inquiries must be led by a judge? That would be Nick Clegg who of course was the man directly responsible for Brown’s resignation. During the coalition negotiations Clegg held open the possibility of a coalition with Labour but only if Brown announced that he would step aside.

Something for which Clegg should be thanked even if he is an insanely leftist cunt with the principles of a shithouse rat and for whom hardly anyone voted.

The breathtaking dishonesty of the Financial Times newspaper.

Today (Thurday 14 April 2011) I have seen perhaps the most dishonest frontpage story in a supposedly “quality” newspaper, that I have come upon in my life.

The “Financial Times” has a front page story that President Barack Obama has proposed cutting four trillion (yes with a “t”) Dollars from the American Federal government deficit over a period of ten years.

Such a story, if true, would be welcome news – as the American Federal government is already more than 14 trillion Dollars in debt (thanks, in part, to the wild “stimulus” spending of President Obama – which the Financial Times supported) and is borrowing more than one and half trillion Dollars in the comming year alone.  So whilst the Federal government would still be spending trillions of Dollars over the next ten years – it would at least be spending four trillion Dollars less, and so would also borrow four trillion Dollars less.

The Financial Times, however, then goes on to report that spending cuts to tax increases are at a rate of three to one – so, in reality, the spending cuts are three trillion Dollars.

“Well that is dishonest Paul – but not wild dishonesty, you have got too upset over such a thing”.

Accept for one fact:

There is no “three trillion Dollar” spending cut (no more than there is a four trillion Dollar one). It is all a LIE a vast stinking LIE.

Barack Obama has proposed no real overall spending cut at all – it is all smoke and mirrors, waffle and spit.

It is the duty of a “quality” newspaper (especially a financial newspaper) to expose such a vast lie – but, instead, the Financial Times reports it as if it were the truth – and makes this lie a front page news story.

They are scoundrels, scum of the worst order. They are financial journalists, they must know what they are reporting as truth is a lie. They are misleading, deliberatly misleading, any trader or investor who sees the front page of their newspaper. I care not for what qualification there may be inside the newspaper (I have not looked inside it – and I do not intend to dirty my hands with it) – it is the front page headline and story that is what matters.

Should the lying scoundrals of the Financial Times, who have undertaken this fraud upon the pulblic, take exception to my words – I am at their disposal, for I am prepared to defend my words before the courts.

%d bloggers like this: