VIDEO: British MP speaks clearly vs abortion, same-sex "marriage"

Last week, in a piece headed "The pinstriped populist", The Economist 's "Bagehot" opined that the selection of Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative member of the British Parliament, as his party's next leader (once Theresa May is defenestrated) would be a "calamity".

What is it that the ancient "newspaper" (as it still styles itself) has against Mr Rees-Mogg? Apparently they don't like him because he is rich, upper-class, conservative in matters both economic and social, and a practising Roman Catholic. Even with all those millstones around his neck, Bagehot fears that he has the "Moggmentum" to succeed Mrs May and lead his party into the next election. If he does, Bagehot asserts, the Tories would be wiped out because everyone knows there is no alternative to the liberal, secular humanist policies which have proven so successful in the AABC countries for over half a century.

Among other epithets, Bagehot calls Mr Rees-Mogg "eccentric". This would appear to be because, unlike most politicians, Mr Rees-Mogg is unafraid to state his opinions, however at variance they may be with the "conventional wisdom" or politically correct thinking. Case in point, an interview given early last September to ITV's Good Morning Britain in which the MP confounded the interviewers by stating, clearly and calmly, his opinions that (a) life begins at the point of conception, making abortion for whatever reason wrong, and (b) marriage is a sacrament and "the view of what marriage is is taken by the church, not parliament." Here's the clip.



For this precious minute alone, Jacob Rees-Mogg deserves (IMHO) the Order of Saint Thomas More... and if there isn't such a thing, there should be! If only Pope Francis would speak so clearly, and with such high regard for the tenets of the True Faith!

Parsons Green suspects arrested at asylum-seekers halfway house

Time for a further update on the Parsons Green Islamic terror attack. British police today announced the sixth arrest in the course of their Parsons Green bombing investigation, with a 17-year-old Muslim taken into custody in the Thornton Heath district of south London.

He had his collar felt (Americans please read: was detained) pursuant to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act. Forensics experts were busy today scouring a three-storey house in the suburb, which neighbours say houses asylum-seekers being "dealt with" by the Home Office.

The online edition of the Daily Mail reports that three men aged 25, 30 and 48 were apprehended by Inspector Knacker while staying at a half-way house for refugees in South Wales. A 21-year-old, named in some reports a Yahyah Farroukh, a Muslim "refugee" from Syria, was arrested in West London.

The first man arrested was an 18-year-old Iraqi who is thought to have been referred to a deradicalization programme before the attack. Those who've been paying attention should remember that President Trump said the attack was perpetrated by people who were "within sight of Scotland Yard". For that, he was castigated by British Prime Minister Theresa May for "speculating" about something which was still under investigation. Turns out Mr Trump was right. Walt speculates (!) that he had inside information which wasn't given to Mrs May!

Meanwhile, an Iraqi painter-decorator who was first in the latest wave of arrests by anti-terror police investigating the Parsons Green tube bombing has been pictured for the first time. Mahdi Ramadi, known as Bilal, has been named locally as one of the three men detained in Wales. Witnesses said he smiled when police moved in to arrest him.

UPDATED: Latest stats from Parsons Green Islamic terrorist bombing

Here, in its entirety, is the latest update from AP on the attempt by radical Islamic terrorists to cause a catastrophic explosion on the London Underground at Parsons Green station.

British police have arrested a third suspect in connection with the bomb that partially exploded on a London subway last week. Police said they arrested a 25-year-old man in Wales on Tuesday evening under the Terrorism Act. They say a property in Newport, Wales, was being searched.

Two other men arrested over the weekend -- an 18-year-old refugee from Iraq and a 21-year-old from Syria -- remain in custody. Neither has been charged. The partially exploded bomb injured 30 people when it detonated inside a crowded subway car on Friday.

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants have claimed responsibility.

Apart from the references to the country of origin of the first two suspects (reported here on WWW before it was acknowledged by the police or UK government), there is no reference to the ethnicity (Arab) or religion (Islam) of any of the "usual suspects" so far rounded up by Inspector Knacker.

Also missing from the AP report is confirmation that the number of jihadists in detention is actually five -- this according to CBC Radio this morning. UPDATE added at 0750. AP has now included in its bulletin the arrests under the Terrorism Act of a 48-year-old man and a 30-year-old man under the Terrorism Act in Newport, Wales. As usual, nothing about the ethnicity or religion or immigration status of those arrested.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines of the UN meeting in New York today, British Prime Minister Theresa May is having a meeting today with senior executives from Google, Facebook and Microsoft, alongside her French and Italian counterparts, Emmanuel Macron and Paul Gentiloni. Why? To urge the giant internet companies to take down "extremist content" within two hours, so as not to aid "extremists" in spreading their propaganda.

Walt wonders which "extremists" Mrs May has in mind. She's the world leader (NOT) who told President Trump that he shouldn't "speculate" about the Parsons Green bombers' identities and motives. Her request to Google et alii to monitor and delete "extremist content" sounds to me like yet another politically correct attack on freedom of speech. That kind of censorship could easily be applied not just to Islamist websites, but to such moderate and helpful online publications as... errr... Walt Whiteman's World!

VIDEO: Subway explosion in London: who dunnit if not ISIS?

We had a bit of a vacation from Islamic terror this summer, but "the harvest is passed, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." (Jeremiah 8:20). This morning an explosion ripped through a packed London Underground (subway) train at Parsons Green. 29 people were injured, but no-one has died... yet.

Passengers reported seeing a device in one of the tube train cars, and hearing a bang during the Friday morning rush-hour. Footage posted on Twitter appears to show a burning device -- a white plastic bucket inside a foil-lined shopping bag. Flames and what appear to be wires can be seen emerging from the top.



Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, head of Inspector Knacker's counterterrorism unit, said "We now assess this was a detonation of an improvised explosive device." Walt says, "No shit, Sherlock!" In keeping with precedent and the British tradition of fair play, innocent until proven guilty and so on, the coppers declined to point the finger at Muslims or ISIS or Druids or anyone in particular. "There are many urgent inquiries ongoing with hundreds of detectives involved, looking at CCTV, carrying out forensic work and speaking to witnesses," Mr Rowley said in a statement to the meeja. Apparently no cries of "Allahu akbar!" were heard, and no group has so far claimed responsibility.

UPDATE ADDED FRIDAY AFTERNOON: British Prime Minister Theresa May, politically correct to a fault, scolded President Trump for daring to "speculate on what is an ongoing investigation." The US president had described the attackers, in a Tweet, as "loser terrorists" and "sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard." Mrs May probably thought Mr Trump meant "Islamic terrorists", but of course it wouldn't be "helpful" to so describe them. By the sheerest coincidence, ISIS claimed responsibility for the terror attack about two hours after Mrs May spoke.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Mrs May also objected to President Trump's suggestion that the British authorities should be more "proactive" in dealing with the terrorists. Mr Trump had tweeted "Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner." Walt had no sooner posted the above update when the mojo wire spat out news that the UK government has raised their national threat level to "critical" from "severe", which means it expects another attack imminently. Mrs May now says there will be a greater presence of armed police in public places. Sounds more proactive to me!

Footnote: By Ed.'s count this is the fifth terrorist attack in not-so-Great Britain this year. Used to be it was the IRA that the Brits had to worry about, but now it's not militant Catholics, but militant Muslims! Just because Islamophobia isn't "a real thing" doesn't mean the jihadists aren't out to get us!

Scottish independence referendum

Agent 6 writes to say that if Theresa May is returned to power in tomorrow's UK election (see "British election too close to call?", earlier today), her next big challenge will be the demand of the Scottish National Party for another referendum on independence for the land of Robbie Burns.

If, in the referendum, Scotland should vote for independence, what's left of the United Kingdom will be known as the "Former United Kingdom", or FUK.

In a bid to discourage the Scots from voting "Yes" in this referendum, Theresa May will campaign with the slogan "Vote NO, for FUK's sake."
She feels Scottish voters will be able to relate to this.

British election too close to call?

I can work up but little interest -- and less excitement -- about the UK general election. Polling day is less than 24 hours off. I won't be voting, don't even know how to bet.

Theresa Maybe (as The Economist dubbed her) called the snap election after only two years in power, hoping to run a bare majority in the House of Commons up to awesome numbers. The thinking (?) behind doing so appears to have been that the UKIP had effectively disbanded itself after the Brexit referendum, and the Labour Party had all but committed suicide by choosing a leader -- Jeremy Corbyn -- from the loony left. [But he's on the right in the picture! LOL Ed.] The Liberal Democrats, the party of the mushy middle, look like being reduced to only a handful of seats, and the Green Party have yet to elect a member of parliament.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Mrs May looked to have the winning strategy. The polls had her Conservative Party well ahead, with most of the betting being on the spread. Then came the Manchester massacre. Then, just last weekend, the London Bridge terrorist attacks. As if those things weren't enough to shake one's faith in Mrs May's leadership, she flip-flopped on a pledge to end the cap on social care bills. The Reds [Labour, surely! Ed.] and even some of her own supporters said the financial impact on seniors -- very determined voters, that lot -- amounted to a "dementia tax". As for fighting back against Islamic terrorism, Mrs May is having trouble living down massive cuts to the police budget when she was Home Secretary, and her party's failure to cut immigration to under 100,000 per year, as they had promised.

So here we are, less than 24 hours out, and a projected Tory win by over 20% has dwindled to 6% or less, depending on which poll (if any) you believe. It's possible (but not probable) that Labour may win, making Mr Corbyn Prime Minister. That would really shake things up. Mr Corbyn appeals to the naïve young people who, in America, supported Bunny Sanders. But Mr Corby is way way to the left of Mr Sanders. He is an avowed Marxist, who, under previous leaders, defied the Labour whip 428 times. Among other things, he opposed anti-terrorist legislation (!) and the invasion of Iraq. His inner circle is even more hard-line. His shadow chancellor (= minister of finance) is an admirer not only of Marx but also of Lenin and Trotsky.

For many reasons, British politics has become almost as polarized (and polarizing) as that of the Excited States of America. Realistically, the choice for voters is between the right (Conservatives) and the hard left (Labour). There is no more "moderate centre". That means the real losers of tomorrow's election will be the "progressives" and liberals, and for that, much thanks.

Question from Ed.: Are you going to call this or not?
Answer from Walt: Not. Lifetime pct .988.

British cops refuse to name London Bridge jihadis

On May 22nd, Walt posed the question, "Who's behind the Ariana Grande concert explosion?" Inspector Knacker of the Yard refused to answer that reasonable question, presumably for reasons of political correctness, since they don't have M-103 in the UK. (Only in Canada you say? Pity!) So Walt answered his own question the next day. See "Answer to yesterday's question: Islamic terrorists!"

Fast forward to this weekend's attacks at London Bridge and London borough market, in which seven people were killed and 48 wounded. The three murderers were shot down by police -- good on 'em! -- and are not included in the body count above. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the terrorist "incident".

Today the question arises once again: Who dunnit? The Metropolitan Police say they know the identity of the three attackers and will release their names "as soon as operationally possible". What does that mean? Walt suggests it means "as soon as we can figure out how to downplay the fact that they were Arab Muslims."

British Prime Minister Theresa May, who actually uttered the I-word on Sunday (see "The word our 'leaders' just won't say", WWW 4/6/17), said victims of what she called "an attack on the free world" (not "Christian world") included a "number of nationalities". AP reports that "security sources" in Dublin have said one of the attackers was carrying an identification card issued in the Republic of Ireland. Walt has pointed out more than once that nationality and/or place of residence have nothing to do with ethnicity and religion. What was want to know is: were these cowardly murderers Muslim fanatics? Answer comes there none.

All Inspector Knacker will say is that the Peelers are working on it. Yesterday and today they have searched a number of addresses in east London, particularly the hamlets of Newham and Barking, where they have arrested a number of Barking madmen. That area of London is known to be home to large numbers of non-Caucasian immigrants, "refugees", asylum-seekers and other invaders. Eleven people are being held after police raids in Barking on Sunday. One of the properties raided is believed to be the home of one of the attackers. No information about any of the Mohammeds/Abdullahs/whatevers has been released.

The word our "leaders" just won't say

"We have to stop being politically correct and get down to the business of protecting our people!"

Who do you think said that, following yesterday's "incident" of Islamic terrorism in London? (Body count as of this morning: 48 wounded, 7 dead plus 3 Muslim "martyrs" shot by British cops.) Give up? OK, I'll tell you. It was Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America. It was not:
- Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a very proper English lady who is trying on her Maggie Thatcher impression -- "Enough is enough!", is what she said -- and failing.
- Angela Merkel, the frumpy hausfrau whose discredited Willkommenskultur policy opened Germany's borders to well over a million Muslim "refugees" and asylum-seekers, who are now sucking on the welfare tit while biting the hand that fees them.
- Emmanuel Macron, the newly-elected President of France, a "man" who never held political office and, because he couldn't marry his mother, instead married his school teacher, a lady (thank goodness!) 25 years his senior.
- Justin Trudeau, the King of the Selfies who poses as Prime Minister of Canada, who never met a Muslim he didn't invite to come to Canada and vote for him. M Trudeau and the state-owned CBC thump the multicult drum incessantly, preaching that Canada's diversity is its strength.

Now that President Trump has (according to the lamestream media) abdicated his position as leader of the Western world, Mrs May, Frau Merkel, and Messrs Macron and Trudeau are the only "leaders" we have left. Lord have mercy on us! Now that we so badly need a real man, where is the Churchill, where is the De Gaulle, who will order his government to take all means necessary -- including not just "containment", but deportation, imprisonment and execution -- to rid us of the scourge of Islamic terrorism.

For that's what this weekend's attacks in London (and Kabul) were. Islamic terrorism. "Allahu akbar!" is heard in the streets of a Western capital once again. Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility for the latest attack, ISIS had sent out a call on instant messaging service Telegram early on Saturday, urging its followers to launch attacks with trucks, knives and guns against "Crusaders" during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The one thing that the four "leaders" named above have in common is that not one of them used the words "Islam", "Islamic" or "Islamist" -- let alone "ISIS" -- in their public shedding of crocodile tears in response to the attacks. Like "cunt" and "piss", "Islam" is a word that the ladies who lead us have decided they just won't say. So the PC police have made it clear that "Islam" is now the I-word, the new N-word, not to be uttered, especially in the same breath as "terrorism" or "terrorists", in any form or any medium. Period.

Further reading (and viewing -- includes video): "Trump Uses London Attack to Criticize Mayor, Promote Ban", Bloomberg Politics, 4/6/17.

Apology to Theresa May: In the video embedded in the Bloomberg article, Mrs May did say "Islamist extremism" once, in the two-minute clip. However, she also said these attacks are not representative of Islam, which we all know is the religion of peace. (OK, she didn't say that last part. I did.)

British general election: why now?

Under Britain’s Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, passed to get rid of the uncertainty under the unwritten constitution, under which an election could be called at any time, elections are now to be held every five years. BUT (and it's a big one) the prime minister can call a snap election if two-thirds of lawmakers vote for it. Today, the Rt Hon Theresa May announced that she would ask the House of Commons to back her call for an election to be held on June 8th, three years before the next scheduled date. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would support the request.

Walt wonders why. Ms May was never elected Prime Minister, inheriting the position from David Cameron, who resigned shortly after the majority of English and Welsh Britons (but not Scots or Ulstermen) voted for Brexit -- secession from the European Union. But then, the British PM is not directly elected anyway. He/she is simply the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, which happens to be Ms May's Conservatives. The June election is highly unlikely to result in a change of government.

Ms May's explanation is that since Britons voted to leave the EU in June, the country has come together, but politicians have not. She said the political divisions "risk our ability to make a success of Brexit.... Our opponents believe that because the government's majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course" on getting out of the EU. "They are wrong," she said. "They underestimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country."

That doesn't sound right to me. The real opposition to Brexit comes not from Mr Corbyn's Labour Party, which is even more divided than Ms May's Tories, but from the liberal one-worlders who dominate the British meeja and are strong in both parties. These anti-Brexit forces, aided and funded by George Soros, were in the streets (literally) immediately after the referendum, demanding a do-over. Petitions bearing millions (literally) of signatures have been presented to Parliament. But, as in the USA, the people have spoken and there will be no redo.

But what if, what if Ms May's party loses the June election, or finds itself in a minority position in the next House of Commons? Ms May, who is personally opposed to leaving the EU, but obliged to follow the expressed will of the people, has asked for a mandate to negotiate the type of Brexit that many pro-Leave MPs desire: i.e., the UK remains in the single market but does not sign up to the Freedom of Movement Act which was the reason the majority of Britons voted to take their country out. If she doesn't get that mandate, she could interpret the loss as a signal that the British people have changed their mind about Brexit, and call a halt to the whole thing.

The water is muddied further by the upcoming French presidential election. See "Marine Le Pen criticizes Pope, Church for interfering in French politics", posted here yesterday and "'Vote for civilization!', Marine Le Pen tells French", WWW 5/2/17. The election of Marine Le Pen would be widely viewed as a precursor to a "Frexit" -- the withdrawal of France from the EU. If France goes, what would be the point of Britain staying in. The future of Europe should be much clearer by the summer solstice.

Cabinet minister says mass immigration is damaging Britain

One might think that Theresa May, Minister of the Interior of Once-great Britain, would be due for a carpeting* from her boss, Prime Minister David Cameron, after telling the ruling Conservative Party's annual conference that mass immigration is damaging British society.

One would be wrong. Mr. Cameron says he agrees with Ms May's politically incorrect speech, clearly designed to ease British voters’ concerns that the government is failing to control the island nation’s borders.

Ms May called levels of immigration seen over the last ten years "not in the national interest.... When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society." She added that mass immigration strains public services like schools and hospitals, drives downs wages and pushes some people out of work.

Net migration into Britain reached a high of 330,000 people in the year to March, far above the level of 100,000 previously promised by Prime Minister Cameron. The high rate of immigration has fuelled support for rival parties, -- including the United Kingdom Independence Party feared by British liberals and the chattering classes -- and is seen as a factor that may persuade Britons to vote to leave the European Union in a referendum to be held by the end of 2017.

Walt wonders if any politicians in North America, other than Donald Trump, are paying attention. There may be some, like Canada's Stephen Harper, who agree in private but wouldn't dare say so publicly in an election year. In North America, political correctness trumps reality every time!

Further reading: "Theresa May: Cohesion 'impossible' with high migration", on the BBC News site.

* Note from Ed.: When Walt writes "carpeting", readers in Zimbabwe and other formerly British bits of the world may be left with the impression that Mr. Cameron and Ms May will be shagging in the shag. Not so. "Carpeting" means a verbal tongue-lashing, dressing-down, reprimand -- as in "being called on the carpet".