English Rights Campaign

to defend the rights and interests of the English nation

Thursday, October 20, 2016


The third presidential debate yesterday, was arguably the one most focused on policy. There were a number of questions on set topics. These topics were: The Supreme Court; Immigration; The Economy; Fitness To Be President; Foreign Hotspots; National Debt; and Closing Statements (which the candidates did not expect).


Hillary Clinton said that the issue was what kind of country the USA should be? She mentioned women's rights and LGBT. On abortion, she believed it was a woman's choice. Donald Trump said he supported the 2nd Amendment, was proud of the NRA's endorsement, and was pro-life. He believed it was wrong to terminate a pregnancy close to 9 months.


Trump said that the USA needed strong borders and that amnesties were a disaster. He pledged to get the criminal illegal immigrants out and reiterated the need for a wall. Clinton prioritized keeping families together, and wanted a path to citizenship for 'undocumented people', of whom she said there were 11 million.

In response to a direct question from the modulator about a previous statement of wanting an 'open hemisphere' including open borders, Clinton launched into an attack on the Russian president, Putin, who she claimed was trying to help Trump. The debate on immigration ended with an argument about who was to be most trusted on nuclear weapons and the importance of defence alliances.

Clinton did not properly answer the questions put to her and sought to distract the debate onto other issues by churning out allegations against Trump and Putin.


Clinton said that 'when the middle class thrives, America thrives' and that her economic proposals would create 10 million new jobs whereas she accused that Trump's proposals would lose 3 million jobs. Clinton said that her proposals would not add 'a penny' to the debt.

Trump described Clinton as a disaster, that the Democrats had doubled the national debt, and that jobs were 'being sucked out of the economy' due to bad trade deals. He pointed out that the US growth rate was very low and that there was a need to get it up. He said that the USA's growth rate was around 1%, compared with 8% for India and 7% for China.

Clinton no longer denied ever having been in favour of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and said that she opposed it now and would do so as president. She said she would not tolerate Chinese dumping of steel, and would appoint a trade prosecutor to enforce trade agreements. Trump pointed out that she had been in power for 30 years and that if she meant it she would already have done it.

Clinton ended the debate by accusing Trump of racial discrimination in his businesses and how she supported women's rights whereas Trump was insulting to women.


Trump pointed out that the recent claims from a number of women made against him were false and their stories had been debunked. He criticized Clinton for causing trouble and using rioters and false allegations.

Clinton said that Trump believed the belittling women made him bigger, had been insulting to women and that this was who Trump is. She declared that the USA was great because it is good and that there was a need to stand up against Trump.

Trump countered that Clinton had broken the law when she deleted 33,000 emails, had lied to the FBI and had run a crooked campaign.

Clinton attacked Trump referring to Trump's comments about some Muslim parents (Khans who Clinton had promoted), John McCain, a judge, and his comments about women. She said this was a pattern and was not who America is.

Trump countered by saying that the Clinton Foundation, which Clinton described as a world renowned charity, was a disreputable enterprise that had done a lot of harm in Haiti, was being used to fund Clinton and her campaign, and, despite all Clinton's talk of LGBT and women's rights, was grubbing up monies from Saudi Arabia where homosexuals risked being killed and women were treated very badly.


There was a debate about Iraq and Syria. Clinton committed that US troops would not be deployed in Iraq. Trump said that he believed Iran was a danger and was gaining dominance in Iraq.

Trump said that the USA did not know who the rebels in Syria are. He pointed out the threat posed by allowing in Syrian refugees who were extremists and wanted a safe haven in the Middle East to accommodate them. Clinton said that the US should not let in unvetted people and considered Muslim communities in the US to be in the front line in the fight against extremism.


It was pointed out by the moderator that at 77% of GDP, the national debt was the highest it has ever been since WWII.

Trump said that with faster growth of 5-6% and by taking negotiating better trade deals the USA would be better able to fund its spending and bring the debt down. Clinton said that the wealthy needed to pay more and of the need to rebuild the middle class.

Clinton accused Trump of criticizing Ronald Reagan's trade deals, which Trump readily accepted. He said he spoke out because he considered them to be bad deals and he had been proven right.

Trump said there was an urgent need to replace Obamacare, which he said was quickly running out of funds and premiums were already rocketing. Clinton said there was a need for more funding, would tax the wealthy, and committed that there would be no reduction in benefits.


Clinton said that she was reaching out to everyone and would stand up against powerful interests.

Trump said there was a need for change and promised to make 'America Great Again'.

The outcome of the debate was that Trump had held his own and had shown considerable knowledge of the key issues in contention. Clinton did not have a monopoly on wisdom – despite what she likes to pretend.

The English Rights Campaign will pick up on some matters. To deal immediately with Trump's comment about not knowing who the Syrian rebels are, the favoured group for the West is the Free Syrian Army. This group has received funding from Western countries. Even so, it has virtually ceased to exist not least because of a failure to expand its size and due to defections to other Islamist groups who then benefited from Western weaponry.

In March 2013, the extent of the barbarity of the Syrian civil war was demonstrated by the rebel commander Khaled al Hamad (also known as Abu Sakkar) of the Free Syrian Army who was videoed eating the heart and liver of a dead Syrian soldier. Hamad said: 'I swear to God, you soldiers of Bashar, you dogs, we will eat from your hearts and livers! O heroes of Bab Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take out their hearts to eat them!' He was not disciplined. These are the moderates.

There was no mention of Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' assertion. This was highly convenient for Clinton. Unlike tittle-tattle of what Trump might have said many years ago, this was a statement of political intent by Clinton. It is a reflection of her politics and the type of policies she will pursue. When she speaks of America being good and who America is, she means political correctness. Her deplorables statement is what she means by being good. She holds tens of millions of ordinary Americans in open contempt and believes others should do likewise.

Trump made an important point about the Clinton Foundation being funded by the Saudis. Despite her proclamations of wanting women's and LGBT rights, such does not prevent Clinton from grubbing up monies from some of the most backward and anti-LGBT and anti-women's rights regimes around. She is hypocritical.

Clinton's economic policy is focused more on taxing the wealthy than on increasing the productive capacity of the US economy. She is evasive and backtracking on her commitment to the various trade deals with which she is associated. Trump has consistently demanded trade reform as a means of revitalizing the US economy. He is determined to increase the US growth rate. Clinton regards the trade issue as an embarrassment and is not to be trusted at all.

Clinton's track record, her deplorables attack on ordinary Americans, her commitment to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and that fact that she changed the topic in the debate all show that she is untrustworthy regarding immigration. Trump has remained consistent in his determination to build his wall and stop illegal immigration.

For those who wish to 'Make America Great Again', then The Donald remains the one to vote for.

Saturday, October 15, 2016


'Charles Neufeld, a German arms dealer waiting for deliverance after twelve years as a prisoner of the Khalifa, heard apocalyptic sounds from the city gaol. For months he had been shackled in irons. Now he was half-smothered in dust and stones. The explosion sounded to him and his fellow prisoners “like the screeches of the damned let loose”. The gaolers climbed on to the roof and reported that the “devils” came from boats (in fact, they came from 5-inch howitzers) which had steamed up to Halfeya, a few miles north of the city. Later that afternoon, Neufeld was told that the bombardment had failed … By the mercy of Allah, the boats of the infidel had been driven off … and sunk. Neufeld collapsed into despair. But that night, he lay awake and heard an eerie sound – the pat-pat-pat of bare feet as thousands of men fled silently through the narrow streets to escape the English invaders …

Despite the bombardment of the Mahdi's tomb, morale seemed excellent. The Khalifa's troops fired a volley of shots, as though to celebrate a victory. It was impossible to hide the scale of desertions; yet the great majority of the Khalifa's vast army stood firm. There must have been 50,000 white-robed Ansar there in the plain, banners flying, spears and swords flashing in the fierce sunlight.'

'What a spectacle, [Winston Churchill] wrote later, “Never shall I see such a sight again” … the Khalifa's army was marching swiftly towards him … concentrated on a front only four miles wide, under hundreds of wildly waving banners. “The whole side of the hill seemed to move”, wrote Churchill later, “and the sun, glinting on many hostile spear-points, spread a sparkling cloud”.

Behind Jebel Sugham, the black hill at Churchill's back, and invisible to the Mahdists, rose the dust of 25,000 men, six brigades of [General] Kitchener's British and Egyptian infantry …'

'For [Kitchener] the war had began thirteen years earlier, on 26 January 1885, that day of shame for Britain, when Khartoum fell and Gordon died [Kitchener had been a major in the failed relief column]. Now it was time for them to repay that debt and wipe the slate clean. So he had sternly reminded his men on 7 April that year, on the eve of the battle of Atbara: “The Sirdar [Kitchener] is absolutely confident that every officer and every man will do his duty, he only wishes to impress upon them two words: 'Remember Gordon'. The enemy before them are Gordon's murderers.” '

'About an hour after dawn on 2 September, the cavalry patrols reported that the Dervish army was advancing straight towards the British camp. Within half an hour their flags and spears broke the skyline over the black hill to the south-west. … At 6.50 a.m. British field-guns began to knock holes in the advancing line, giving the cue to the Egyptian batteries, and the gunboats on the river to the east. Armageddon had begun.'

'Two divisions of the Khalifa's army (about 6,000 men under Osman Digna and 8,000 men under the Emir Osman Azrak) put their faith in Allah and charged straight at the British camp. They wore the holy uniform of the patched jibbah (plus, in some cases, chain mail). They advanced in an enormous crescent, brandishing their spears and their texts from the Koran, and chanting, like the muezzin from the minaret, “La Illah illa'uah wa Muhammad rasul Allah” (“There is but one God and Muhammad is his Prophet”). The shells knocked holes in their lines, but the holes were soon filled. From 2,000 yards the British infantry started volley-firing with their smokeless Lee-Merfords. Still the Dervishes came on steadily, now running, now walking. The Maxims then joined in. At 800 yards' range the Egyptian and Sundanese battalions followed with their Martini-Henrys, firing black powder. There was pandemonium in the British camp, and the enemy was lost in the smoke … British infantry were firing volleys shoulder to shoulder, with the front rank kneeling and the rear rank standing … As the smoke cleared, shot and mangled, 2,000 men at least [lay] in crumpled heaps. Thousands more were retreating, wounded. Not a single man had survived to reach the British firing line.'

'Yet only a quarter of the Khalifa's army had been fully engaged. The Army of the Green Flag, 20,000 men under Emir Wad el Sheikh and Ali Wad Helu, had vanished northwards. After a tussle with the cavalry and the camel corps, they had slipped behind the Karan Hills, two miles north of the British camp. And where was the Army of the Black Flag: 17,000 men led by the Khalifa himself and his brother Yakob?'

'[Kitchener] gave orders for the 21st Lancers to reconnoitre the plain, followed by the army, advancing in echelon of brigades from the left.'

'Their [21st Lancers] CO, Colonel Martin, insisted on a cavalry charge. The regiment had been mocked for having no battle honours, and now they got a bellyful. For a few extraordinary moments, Winston Churchill felt the stunning shock of the collision between 400 shouting horsemen and 2,000 yelling [Dervish] infantry.'

'There was now no cavalry to reconnoitre. So Kitchener's two front brigades marched briskly off … unaware that the rear brigade – the 1st Egyptian Brigade of Brigadier-General Hector MacDonald – was a mile behind the rest, and cut off by nearly 40,000 Dervishes … “Fighting Mac” was a veteran of Majuba (where he was supposed to have knocked out a Boer with his bare fist). He was a square-jawed Scot, promoted from the ranks of the Gordons … he sent off a galloper, a messenger to tell the Sirdar about their predicament. The galloper got short change. “Can't he see that we're marching on Omdurman?” was the Sirdar's reply. “Tell him to follow on”.

Fortunately, something made the great man change his mind. In a few minutes the two British brigades and the other Egyptian brigades wheeled away from Omdurman and swung west to protect MacDonald's left flank. Still more fortunately, the two surviving Mahdist armies … were unable to coordinate their attacks … So MacDonald was able to parry each in turn. First he smashed down a charge from the west: a yelling line of white-robed figures, under a huge black banner, crumpled and mangled by the combined Martini-Henrys, Maxims and field-guns firing case shot. Then he smashed down a charge from the north, and drove the men of the Green Flag back to the shelter of Karari, pursued by Broadwood's Egyptian cavalry.

It was time to resume the march on Omdurman … The enemy [Kitchener] remarked, had had a “good dusting”.'

'[Kitchener] had destroyed the Khalifa's army and added a vast new territory to the British Empire, nominally in partnership with Egypt. Only one thing detracted from the completeness of his victory: taking a fresh camel, the Khalifa had escaped with a trusty band … But all relics of the Mahdi were scatted to the winds.

Four days after the battle, Kitchener order the dome, cupola, plinth and every trace of the Mahdi's tomb to be razed to the ground.'

'Kitchener set the seal on the recovery of Khartoum. On 4 September the gunboats steamed across the river for a memorial service to be held in front of the ruins of Gordon's palace. The upper storey had crumbled away, and so had the famous staircase where Gordon had died … Twin flags, the Union Jack and the red flag of the Khedive, were solemnly hoisted on the broken wall and twin national anthems … crashed out across the river front. The service ended with Gordon's favourite hymn, “Abide With Me”, played by the 11th Sudanese. And Kitchener, the man of stone, impervious to suffering or triumph, found he had no voice to dismiss the parade. Tears swelled the large pale-blue eyes, smudged the dust on his cheeks – tears of happiness and gratitude, he explained to his astonished staff … After thirteen years he had redeemed his country's honour. Gordon was avenged.

Three thousand miles away in Berlin, the Kaiser was writing to his grandmother, Queen Victoria, to congratulate her on the British victory. She too was thinking of the place where “poor Gordon met his cruel fate”.'

The above extracts are from The Scramble for Africa, by Thomas Pakenham, and give an account of the Battle of Omdurman (1898).

Had 'Fighting Mac' and Kitchener been less careful, and had the Dervishes been able to coordinate their attacks, then 'Fighting Mac' and his men may have met the same fate as the British army at Isandlwana at the hand of the Zulus January 1879.

General Gordon, who had been sent to Khartoum to organise the Anglo-Egyptian withdrawal from Sudan, was killed by the Mahdists at Khartoum. His severed head was wedged between branches in a tree to be pelted with stones by passers-by.

Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, who was in the USA at the time of the Battle of Omdurman, said to a New York reporter: 'That settles it for all time. Gordon is avenged.'

There are two lessons to be learned from this. First, the struggle against ISIS and other sects of radical Islam has been described by both British and American politicians as being a 'generational struggle' (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 24 March 2016). As a point of historical fact, that is untrue. Extremists have been popping up in north Africa and the Middle East for centuries and are likely to continue to do so for centuries more. This is an ongoing problem.

Second, despite the long wars in Egypt and the Sudan, there were no dervishes committing atrocities in Britain, or any other Western country. Yet Radical Islamist extremists are doing so now. The cause of this wave of terrorism and violence is not simply Radical Islam – otherwise we would have experienced the same in the 19th century. The immediate cause of the atrocities across many Western countries today is that the Islamist extremists are being brought into Western countries, and are even being transported across the Atlantic. It is those who advocate mass immigration, those who are forever demanding that ever more 'refugees' be brought over to the West, and the politically correct, who are to blame. It is their monopoly on governance that has ended the country as being a safe place for the nation to live.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016


'Please understand that there is no one depressed in this house; we are not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist.'

- Queen Victoria, putting some backbone into one of her ministers just after 'Black Week' in the Boer War, in which the British army had suffered a series of setbacks. At the time the British army was outnumbered more than five to one.


The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil.

That the US presidential campaign is mired in tittle-tattle should not deflect attention away from the important issues. The similarities between the USA and the declining Britain at the start of the 20th century grow. Then, the towering figure of Joseph Chamberlain led the Tariff Reform Campaign with the forces of the establishment mobilised against him. The ruling Unionist government was split. Joseph Chamberlain toured the country to make speeches to packed venues.

Today, in the USA, the Republican Party is split, with the grandees, in particular Paul Ryan, knifing Donald Trump rather than supporting him. He tours the USA in a series of rallies that are packed out. The audiences are huge. He advocates a more protectionist approach to trade as well as opposition to mass immigration and political correctness. The US race hangs in the balance with Hillary Clinton ahead.

Clinton, like a grubby lawyer, is intent on smearing her way into the White House. The aim is answer the case made against her by discrediting her opponent. Currently, it is claimed, $millions are being offered by a Clinton donor for tapes of The Apprentice show, allegedly embarrassing to Donald Trump. This is how immoral and how malevolent Clinton is. Her stance is consistent with her previous treatment of those many women her husband has allegedly assaulted or with whom he has had affairs. For example, 'trailer trash' is how Hillary Clinton described one of them.

In the second election debate, Donald Trump was correct to point out the extent of Clinton's hatred and that she should be ashamed of herself. She plays the victim and peddles smears, yet it is she who is guilty of that which she accuses others. It is she who had Muslim parents at her conference attacking Donald Trump; it is she who is peddling the line that border controls are racist; she who divides society into supposedly oppressed groups who she then encourages to unite against the majority; it is she who has accused the Trump campaign of being 'built … on prejudice and paranoia', and of taking 'hate groups mainstream'; it is she who has made comment of the Trump rallies being 'largely white audiences' and alleging 'systemic racism'; it is she who has rehashed Frankfurt School communism with her allegation of there being an 'Alt-Right' with alleged 'Racist ideas. Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigration ideas;' it is she who has alleged a supposed 'Trump Effect' with a message of 'Make America hate again' (see the English Rights Campaign item dated 15 September 2016). More brazenly, it was Clinton who said:

'You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.'
It should be noted that she condemned these Trump supporters as not only 'deplorables' but also 'irredeemable'. Clinton has never properly apologised for these remarks, nor explained the contempt she has for ordinary people and their values. It is Clinton's political correctness that betrays itself in these remarks. In the recent debate she merely said that she was 'sorry about the way I talked about that'. It was her terminology she said she regretted – not her political correctness. The former BBC North American Editor, Justin Webb, recently wrote in the Daily Mail:

'You have to understand why Trump's people will genuinely back him to the last. For them, there is no other candidate, because all the other alternatives on the Republican side have more or less sold out – to big business, to special interests, to Wall Street. Trump is no less than a general leading an insurgent army. For the average Trump supporter, this is not politics: this is war. If they lose, they die … His people are not just gloomy, they are downright desperate. They are mostly white, and living in a nation where the white people will be a minority by 2050. Plenty of white Americans are happy with that prospect but, for those at the bottom of the pile, it feels frightening.'
It should be added that the establishment have also embraced political correctness, for which the ordinary people have never voted and do not want.  Given Clinton's sneer at the 'irredeemable' 'deplorables', one can well understand why. Backs are to the wall.
The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil.

Monday, October 10, 2016


One thing that was proved in the presidential debate yesterday is that those Republicans who have run away in the face of some 'locker room' banter by Donald Trump that was leaked to the media, have made complete fools of themselves. Given the scale of the condemnation heaped upon him, it was expected that The Donald would fail to present himself as a credible candidate. In the event, he acquitted himself very well. He had very significantly improved compared to the first debate. He bested Hillary Clinton.

Clinton did not properly explain herself regarding the deleted emails. She relied upon a suggestion of appointing a lawyer to enforce trade deals as a solution to the $800billion trade deficit. She further continually tried to stir up division and hatred in true politically correct fashion, and then had the gall to declare that 'when they go low, we go high', before hurling a lot of untruths about Muslims, a Mexican judge and the Birther issue. She continued to refuse to use the term 'radical Islamic terrorism'. Regarding her description of tens of millions of Americans as 'deplorables', Clinton merely said that she was 'sorry about the way [she] talked about that'.

Clinton did not explain her criticism that Donald Trump had not paid more taxes, even though his business had suffered losses. Enoch Powell once said: ‘You don’t tax a loss. You only tax a profit. You raise more, the more profit there is to tax’ (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 3 May 2005).

How do you tax a loss? Taxes are levied on profits not losses. Clinton’s smear about this is rubbish.

On the economy, immigration and security, Donald Trump was the one offering change and a determination to tackle the USA's serious problems. Clinton only offers more of the same.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016


To an outsider, the US presidential debate yesterday was disappointing. Although it started well, it eventually evolved into a contest around private issues rather than who has the best policies to run the country. A lot of time was spent on The Donald's reluctance to disclose his financial information.

There is no moral equivalence between Donald Trump's private business finances and Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while in office, which was a blatant breach of the law and compromised national security. Clinton has since been actively engaged in a cover up, including the deletion of a very large number of emails (an estimated 30,000 emails are believed to have been deleted).

Even so, this did not prevent Clinton from sounding forth on the need for USA cyber security in answer to a question on the topic. She blamed Russia for making cyber attacks.

A large part of the debate was consumed with matters such as Obama's birther issue, alleged disgruntled business associates of Donald Trump, past lawsuits, past descriptions of women and other such tittle-tattle. A positive view is that now the tittle-tattle has been debated, then in the future, time will not be wasted on it.

The first 30 minutes of the debate were the most important, and focused on economic policy. Donald Trump explained the need to stop Mexico and China, in particular, from exploiting US trade tolerance by using a number of protectionist measures to the USA's disadvantage, and the jobs lost as firms relocated overseas. Hillary Clinton dodged the thrust of the issue, preferring to make promises about the minimum wage and child care. Her tactic was to change the topic.

Donald Trump highlighted what he saw as the USA's precarious economic situation, with its trade deficit, poor trade deals, over regulation and high taxation, and the danger posed of higher interest rates given that Obama had doubled the national debt. He said that the USA increasingly resembled a Third World country.

By contrast, Clinton ignored these issues and preferred to use pre-rehearsed smears. She alleged that there was a 'Trump Loophole' and dismissed what she described as 'Trumped-Up, Trickle-Down' economics. In her biggest whopper, she said that her husband, Bill, had done a good job in the 1990s and, regarding the Slump of 2008 – or the banking 'credit crunch' (to use a term she might prefer to avoid), she said:

'We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle-class, took their eyes off Wall Street, and created a perfect storm … Nine million people – nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.'

In fact, it was reckless banking matched by reckless economic policy that created a large rise in debt at a time of stagnant incomes that caused the crash. Central to this was Bill Clinton, who was president from 1993-2001. Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore of CNBC recently wrote:

‘Let's look at the many ways the Clintons and cronies contributed to the Great Recession. The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton's presidency.
Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What's more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase "subprime" became commonplace. What an understatement.
Next, the Clinton administration's rules ordered the taxpayer-backed Fannie and Freddie to expand their quotas of risky loans from 30 percent of portfolio to 50 percent as part of a big push to expand home ownership.
Fannie and Freddie were securitizing these home loans and offering 100 percent taxpayer guarantees of repayment. So now taxpayers were on the hook for these risky, low down-payment loans.
Tragically, when prices fell, lower-income folks who really could not afford these mortgages under normal credit standards, suffered massive foreclosures and personal bankruptcies. So many will never get credit again. It's a perfect example of liberals using government allegedly to help the poor, but the ultimate consequences were disastrous for them.
Additionally, ultra-easy money from the Fed also played a key role …
Many bond packages were written to please Fannie and Freddie, based on the fantastical idea that home prices would never fall. Fannie and Freddie, by the way, cost the taxpayers $187 billion.
Just to make this story worse, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama voted to filibuster a Republican effort to roll back Fannie and Freddie. But on top of all this, while Hillary was propping up Fannie and Freddie, she was taking contributions from their foundations.
A Washington Times investigative report concluded that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's political action committee and individuals linked to the companies donated $75,500 to Mrs. Clinton's senatorial campaign. And on top of that, the embattled Clinton Foundation received a $50,000 contribution from Freddie Mac, according to the Times.’
Additionally, it was in 1999 that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, which had been in place since 1933 to separate commercial and investment banking.

Hillary Clinton mentioned that 'independent experts' had examined Donald Trump's tax plans and concluded that the plans would cost jobs and adversely affect the middle-classes. In Britain, where we were deluged with a whole horde of 'experts' claiming that a vote for Brexit would precipitate an immediate recession, we are not impressed with 'independent experts'.

Regarding law and order, Donald Trump drew attention to the effect of the murder rate on African Americans, who he considered had been let down by successive Democrat politicians; whereas Clinton was more concerned about the 'systemic racism' of the criminal justice system.

Those who believe that the USA has serious problems and needs radical change will see that The Donald shares their concerns and is determined to act. Those who do not see much wrong, and have a politically-correct outlook, can vote for Clinton in the knowledge that things will continue as they are and, presumably, she will happily double the US government debt again.

Saturday, September 24, 2016


Parkinson's Law, coined by Cyril Northcote Parkinson in 1955, states that 'work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion'.  He was focused on the tendency of bureaucracies to expand over time irrespective of their workload. Parkinson gave as an example the number of people employed in the Foriegn and Colonial departments in Britain as the Empire shrank.

Parkinson identified two key aspects: firstly 'An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals'; and secondly 'Officials make work for each other.' Another key aspect is that bureaucrats, especially those in well paid and cushy jobs, want to justify their continued existence. One example that could be cited is the ongoing funds flowing to a whole host of gay rights lobbies – as well as other politically correct organizations. One might have thought that all the positive images for gays and even the introduction of gay marriage might have led those in receipt of public funds to conclude that it is now 'job done'. But no, they ably manage to identify all sorts of new activities for themselves, all sorts of new slights that need to be addressed - and so the flow of monies continues.

Another key example is Brexit. Hundreds of civil servants and experts have been allocated to this task with one department being expanded and the creation of one new department entirely. Yet nothing has happened. We are continually told that Brexit is so complicated that it could take very many years. The two year limit set by Article 50 may not be long enough, we are told.

This is all nonsense. The more civil servants are allocated to the task the more complicated it supposedly gets. The May Government, rather than implementing Brexit quickly (as even the EU wanted), is procrastinating and stalling. The Government has set up a considerable gravy train that has a vested interest in avoiding Brexit. Parkinson's Law prevails.

What is needed is a speedy implementation of Turbo Brexit (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 4th August 2016).

Wednesday, September 21, 2016


'Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: “Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all.” Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the unbelievers? Islam says “Kill them (the non-Muslims), put them to the sword and scatter their armies.” Does this mean sitting back until non-Muslims overcome us? Islam says: “Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you.” Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: “Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors.” There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit on the foolish souls that make such a claim.'

- Ayatollah Khoemeini, who led the Iranian revolution [the title Ayatollah means 'Sign of Allah' and is given to those deemed to be the most knowledgeable Shia Islamic scholars]

'Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism'

- Hillary Clinton, tweeting just after the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015