VIEWERS -TOP TOPICS-WKLY/ARCHIVE

*HOME-PT 2

 

PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ & PAGE FOUR

 

A PEACEFUL ENGLISH REVOLUTION IS ON THE WAY-ALERT-1

 
     
 

 

You Can’t Separate Politics and Morals.

 

*

 

Daily Mail

Thursday, May 11-2006.

 

by

 

Stephen Glover

 

TONY BLAIR’S Cabinet reshuffle is predictably already running into difficulties. Ruth Kelly, who has taken over John Prescott’s several ministerial responsibilities, is being attacked on two fronts.

 

On the one hand, it is pointed out that her criticism of middle-class families who resist government plans to build new homes sits unhappily with her opposition to a string of new housing developments in her own constituency. As Local Government Minister, Ms Kelly is now in charge of planning regulations.

 

At the same time, she is attracting even greater flak from the gay lobby. For reasons difficult to fathom, in addition to her local government portfolio she is also described as Equality Minister. This means that she is supposed to ensure that we all have equal rights.

 

Because she is a member of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic movement that has explicitly criticised homosexual liaisons, it is suggested that she is unlikely to give homosexuals a fair crack of the whip.

 

There is little doubt that Ms Kelly accepts the opus Dei line on homosexuality. When asked whether it is a sin, she has refused to give a straight answer. In the Commons, she has missed a total of 12 votes on homosexuality since 1997.

 

In May 2002, she voted for an amendment to a Bill that would have allowed unmarried heterosexuals couples to adopt while excluding same-sex couples.

 

Millions of people will be secretly, or not so secretly in agreement with Ms Kelly’s views. Until 40 or 50 years ago, they would have been held by the vast majority. The Gay lobby is too eager to paint her as an antediluvian nutter.

 

BUT what concerns me are not the rights or wrongs of her views BUT her defence of them. On Radio Five Live two days ago, she again refused to say whether she considered homosexuality a sin. This is what she said:

 

‘I don’t think its right for politicians to start making moral judgments about people…What I think the question is, is what are my political views…As a politician I think everyone should be free from discrimination.

 

IN OTHER WORDS, Ms Kelly is specifically separating politics from morals. She has her moral views, and she has her political ones. Morally, it is pretty clear she is opposed to homosexuality. She could hardly not be, given the position of Opus Dei, indeed of current Roman Catholic Church teaching. According to Jack Valero, a spokesman for Opus Dei in Britain:

 

‘Homosexuality is a condition that people can’t help, but the homosexual act is sinful.’

 

YET while holding this moral view Ms Kelly also says that she believes homosexuals should enjoy equal rights.

 

Why does she think this?

 

The likely answer is because it is a political necessity for her to do so if she is to retain HIGH OFFICE.

 

She believes one thing; she then acts in a way at odds with that belief.

 

Many of us have conflicting views in our minds at the same time, or behave in a manner that is at variance with our beliefs. It is certainly common for people who have moral misgivings about homosexuality to treat individual homosexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals.

 

This is partly a question of politeness and partly a matter of social survival. We could hardly get by in life if we were to get on our moral high horse every time we encountered people of whose behaviour we might privately disapprove.

 

But what might be forgivable, or at least understandable, in our own relations with others cannot be so easily excused in a high politician who wields great power.

 

A minister who believes that morality and politics are separate and mutually exclusive activities is liable to act in a bad and possibly dangerous way. At its most extreme, this sort of dislocation enabled a man like Albert Speer, who certainly had a moral sense, to condone or ignore the barbarities of the Nazi regime in which he was a senior minister.

 

In an admittedly far less dramatic way, isn’t this divorce of the moral from the political one of the defining features of New Labour?

 

Tony Blair presents himself as a highly moral, Christian person whose well-thumbed copy of the New Testament [let alone the Koran] is never far from his side. YET he displays a love of wealth that is hardly a central tenet of Christian belief; and, as this country has learnt to its cost over Iraq, he has a very contingent attitude to TRUTH.

 

MORALITY, for Blair and Ruth Kelly, is conveniently a private affair. In the harsh light of political reality, both of them are ready to disregard their moral precepts or, most spectacularly in the case of Mr Blair, to act counter to them while still - preposterously- claiming the MORAL HIGH GROUND.

 

OF COURSE, I do not say that politics is only a matter of MORALITY, only that the two should not be treated as though they have nothing to do with each other.

 

There are many humdrum political issues, which seem far removed from moral concerns:

 

Ms Kelly’s belief that we should build more houses in the [already] overcrowded South East cannot be said to be more or less moral than the opposing view.

 

Other issues more obviously engage our moral values.

 

Should there be a Death Penalty?

 

Should we alter the Abortion Laws?

 

Is the re-distribution of Wealth desirable?

 

When is War justified?

 

In all these cases there is scope for equally moral people to disagree, or even to arrive at opposite conclusions. What we can ask of OUR politicians, though, is that when they confront these issues they should do so in a way that is consistent with THEIR sense of MORALITY.

 

If Me Blair had done this, he would NOT have taken us to WAR over IRAQ on a massive LIE, or worshipped at the shrine of the appalling Silvio Berlusconi.

 

And it is surely an indication of some sort of MORAL lapse in Ms Kelly for her to propose a policy, namely the relaxation of building controls and the building of more houses, after objecting to similar developments near her own home on many previous occasions, the last as recently as April 2004.

 

We are entitled to change our minds, but when a minister so suddenly revokes her previous approach, we are bound to suspect her of acting out of low political motives.

 

Whether she is right or wrong about homosexuality is not the issue.

 

Ms Kelly believes that homosexual acts are wrong. She therefore presumably believes that homosexuals CANNOT enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. And YET she is required in her new office to ensure THAT THEY DO SO.

 

This suggests to me either that Ruth Kelly is rather stupid, which in view of her high intellectual attainments may seem an unlikely theory. OR, more plausible, she is potentially dangerous, and characteristically Blairite, sort of hypocrite, holding to one set of beliefs while she gaily - no pun intended- contradicts them in the pursuit of power.

 

* *

 

Over 100 years ago a Prime Minister of England - William Ewart Gladstone was acclaimed for his

Moral stance, which were ingrained into his character. The following words are from John Morley’s Life of Gladstone.

 

‘He was one of the three statesmen in the House of Commons of his generation who had a gift of large and spacious conception of the place and power of England in the world, and of the policies by which she could maintain it. Cobden and Disraeli were the other two’.

 

On his day after his death, in each of the two Houses the leader made the motion, identical in language in both cases save the final words about the financial provision in the resolution of the Commons: -

 

 

That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be interred at the public charge, and that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster, with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment and of the high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in parliament and in great offices of state, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

*

The language of the movers was worthy of the British parliament at its best, worthy of the station of those who used it, and worthy of the figure commemorated. Lord Salisbury was thought by most to go nearest to the core of solemnity: -

 

What is the cause of this unanimous feel? Of course, he had qualities that distinguished him from other men; and you may say that it was his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, and the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and convictions of his contemporaries

 

But these things, which explain the attachment, the adoration of those whose ideas he represented, would not explain why it is that sentiments almost fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas were not carried by his policy.

 

My Lords, I do not see the reason is to be found in anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and controversial questions of the policy of the day. They had nothing to do with it.

 

Whether he was right or whether he was wrong, in all measures, or in most of the measures which he proposed - those are matters of which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate here; they are really remitted to the judgment of future generations, who will securely judge from experience what we can only decide by forecast.

 

It was on account of considerations more common to the masses of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any controversial questions of policy that men recognised in him a man guided - whether under mistaken impressions or not, it matters not - but guided in all the steps he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal.

 

What he sought were the attainments of great ideals, and whether they were based on sound convictions or not, they could have issued from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he is honoured by his countrymen, because through so many years, across so many vicissitudes and conflicts, they had recognised this one characteristic of his action, which never ceased to be felt.

 

He will leave behind him, especially to those who have followed with deep interest the history of the later years - I might almost say the later months of his life -he will leave behind him the memory of a great Christian statesman.

 

Set up necessarily on high - the sight of his character, his motives, and his intentions would strike the entire world. They will have left a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be remembered not so much for causes in which he was engaged or the political projects which he favoured, but as a great example, to which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian man.

 

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE

 

Feb 18 -1897- Returns to London from Cannes

 

Feb 22- Goes to Bournemouth

 

March 22- Death of Mr Gladstone

 

March 26, 27- Lying in State in Westminster Hall

 

March 28 -Burial in Westminster Abbey.

 

 

* * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

MAY/06

 

*

 

*

The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138

*

Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a

REFERENDUM

HEAR HIM ON

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o

*

 

 

 

*

www.noliberties.com

[Latest Addition - June07]

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

 

*

 

*

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

July 18-2007

 

 

VOTE

 -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

 

DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’

 

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

MAY/07

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

 

Elections in the British One Party State

If you vote Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP or the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship. All five party leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote doesn't make a difference - all these five parties have the same policies: the EU's policies.

The 17 most senior politicians in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties, including Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David and Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Peter Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140 strong band of ultra senior Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build the EU dictatorship.

No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever be allowed to hold public office.

UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU leadership.)

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF

UKIP

 OR

 INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE

 

 

THE EDP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF BULLETINS  OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE CRITICISED THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY FAILED TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT THEY HAD NO WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANISATION.  THIS FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL TO NO AVAIL.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER CLOSE SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO AN ISRAELI SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR WEBSITE .    IRONICALLY IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO  TO COME UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO THE ILLUMINATI.   THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE  A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN.  THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE SUSPECTED  FOR MANY YEARS   THAT MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION MIGHT BE UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI.  IT IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL ITS POLICES AS THEY BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

  Our intention is not to benefit from this disaster as since the 1999 European Election we have NOT! accepted a DONATION! from ANYONE! and we closed membership also because we did not wish to split the vote for UKIP but have stated in the past that we would contest another election if it was ever necessary to enter into the affray again and with the reputation of UKIP under scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN!   As we mentioned some time ago we have been almost two decades on the campaign trail to free our once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the SATANIC EU and those who have for centuries have planned for an EVIL ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the WORLD'S POPULATION and therefore if we are right about those mentioned above they are not only TRAITORS to their COUNTRY but also a THREAT to WORLD PEACE.   However, of late, matters have NOT! been going well for the ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.

 

WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR

 

 

BENJAMIN FULFORD

 

More!

[WORKS]

*

SEEKTHETRUTHANDWISDOM

 

*

Bank Of England The Banking Swindle

 

More!

 

More!

 

PATRIOT or TRAITOR to HIS COUNTRY

+More!

 

 More!

 

+(More!

 

 

THIS YOU MUST SEE IT CONCERNS

 YOUR

PLANET!

AND

 YOU!

 

 

NO NEED TO PANIC!

 

'Others shall sing the song,

Others shall right the wrong,-

Finish what I begin,

All all I fail of win.

Hail to the coming singers!

Hail to the brave light-bringers!

Forward I reach and above

All that they sing and dare.

 

The airs of heaven blow o'er me;

A glory shines before me

Of what mankind shall be'-

Pure, generous, brave and free,

I feel the earth move sunward,

I join the great march onward,

And  take, by faith, while living,

My freehold of thanksgiving.-

 

WHITTIER

 

MAY-2012

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

 

 

ADDED - MAY-2012