Labour MP, yes, Labour MP, David Lammy, has called for a return to Victorian laws on discipline, and basically condemns Labour Governments for their namby-pamby approach.

One day, even Labour MPs will realise that traditional values are/were better, such as effective discipline, traditional marriage, UK independence, Judeo-Christian-based laws, the right to life of the unborn, etc., but I fear that by the time it has seeped through their thick skulls it will be too late.

One day, they will realise that they actively allowed our precious country to be ruined through their own stupidity and cowardice. They will have to accept that they stood by as millions of unborn children were killed out of convenience. When the deceptions conjured up by the feminists evaporate, they will have to accept the truth that these human beings were murdered and that a woman doesn’t have the ‘right to control her own fertility’ while she is carrying another.

When society has finally collapsed in on itself, politicians will have no other option but to admit that their family-destroying agendas involving quickie divorces, sex ‘education’ and ‘gay rights’ were major contributory factors.

And when all our remaining freedoms and money have been siphoned off to pan-European and global institutions and on waging war for regime change to benefit big corporations, they just might consider how badly they misjudged this ‘New World Order’ they thought would solve the world’s problems, but instead brought increased repression and deprivation.

Jack Straw has also been talking sense. I know, I can’t believe it either, but he wants to implement Gordon Brown’s idea from 2003 (while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) when he, “argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain.”

Apparently, Gordon Brown thought it was a good idea to keep our money and spend it here on regional development programmes rather than laundering it by the £billions through the EU. And you thought he was completely bonkers, but he wasn’t. Not completely.

Even Alan Johnson also argued in 2003 that regional policy ought to be “resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels …”

Clearly, this incredibly obvious thing to do wasn’t done. That’s because the agenda has been for the EU to be allowed to gain as much power and influence over us as possible, making our escape all the more difficult the more we become entangled in its web. The UK (and the other 26 children in the EU) get their pocket money from the EU and the EU flag gets put on documents and signs so that people think of it as a generous giver of money, when all this time we could have done everything ‘they’ have funded, plus a whole lot more had our funds not been funnelled through the corrupt EU bureaucratic system first.

But of course, a politician’s default position is to toe the party line and that often involves a dereliction of duty to his country and constituents. When the politician is also a numbnut, we get the likes of Charles Kennedy:

Kennedy makes it clear that Cameron must never again isolate Britain as he did at last month’s summit when he wielded the British veto. The former Lib Dem leader, who is president of the European Movement, tells the Guardian: “We want to see the British government work with our EU partners to make the EU a vehicle for growth and employment. If we are to keep our place in the world we must regain our competitiveness and we can do that better when we work together. Britain’s place is at the centre of where decisions are made.”

Were we really “at the centre of where decisions are made” the EU might just be a tad more tolerable for us. It might be good for British business rather than strangle it with regulations.  

Kennedy is one of 18 pro-European MPs and peers from the three main parties who have signed a letter in the Guardian in support of the EU. Signatories also include the equally pointless ’Sir’ Menzies Campbell and ‘Lord’ Kinnock.

It is worth remembering that the Kinnocks have personally made enough money out of the EU (i.e. us) to fund a major regeneration programme which would benefit thousands of people.

It is clear why he loves the EU. He’s not daft, is he? He is living proof that socialism can be good for some people.

So, here’s hoping that this wave of sense continues to the point where feminism goes the same way as the T-Rex, political correctness is considered something out of the Dark Ages and the EU becomes as dead as a dodo.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be on the lookout for more outbreaks of political sanity.

Basically, the length of a year according to the Julian Calendar was too long, and after thirteen centuries of use, the actual vernal equinox had slipped to 10th March, so Pope Gregory XIII and his astronomer, the Jesuit priest Christopher Clavius, devised the more accurate Gregorian Calendar. This involved Gregory decreeing that the day after Thursday, 4th October 1582 would be not Friday, 5th October, but Friday, 15th October 1582. According to Wikipedia,

The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace, who feared it was an attempt by landlords to cheat them out of a week and a half’s rent.

Fearing a Papist plot, it took Britain and the colonies about 170 years to ditch the Julian for the Gregorian, which happened in 1752, by which time, they were eleven days out of synch. Wednesday, 2nd September 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14th September 1752. 

The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (c.23) (also known as Chesterfield’s Act after Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield) is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It reformed the calendar of England and British Dominions so that a new year began on 1 January rather than 25 March (Lady Day) and would run according to the Gregorian calendar, as used in most of western Europe.

Although the calendar in Scotland also changed in 1752, we had already changed the date of New Year to 1st January in 1600. I expect this was so my ancestors could celebrate New Year twice. Nowadays, the supermarkets encourage us also to celebrate Chinese New Year, so perhaps the Scots were 400 years ahead of their time in celebrating more than one New Year! Not that I’m suggesting that everyone would have also celebrated in March, but I’m sure the temptation must have been there.

However, 25th March as New Year’s Day only dates from the 12th Century. The Roman year began on 1st January even before the introduction of the Julian Calendar in 45BC. 1st January was dedicated to Janus, the Roman god of beginnings and transitions and also of gates, doorways and so on.

I find it bizarre that so many Christians (and many others, including ‘atheists’) celebrate the day which was consecrated to a Roman god and was resuscitated by a Pope – one who aided and abetted Catholics to subvert Protestant rule in Britain and Ireland.

The calendar attributed to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC,  contained ten months with the vernal equinox in the first month, March, and the days between the end of December and the beginning of March not assigned to any month. Numa Pompilius, the second of the seven traditional kings of Rome, added January and February about forty years later.

The first day of the consular term, effectively the first day of the year, changed several times during Roman history, but finally changed from 15th March to 1st January in 153 BC.

Many cultures celebrate their New Year in the springtime, which seems to make more sense as the land becomes renewed, whereas it is still one dark, cold, damp day after another for weeks after 1st January (in the Northern Hemisphere). How is the year “new” exactly?

Exodus 12:2 describes the month of Abib (in the Spring) thus:

This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

And while I’m on scripture, Genesis 1:5 says that “the evening and the morning were the first day.”

So midnight isn’t even the beginning or end of a day, let alone a year.

To summarise: the year 2012 (supposedly AD, in the year of our Lord) began in the middle of the night, in the middle of Winter, to honour the Roman god, Janus.

The only comfort is that all of this should drive ‘atheists’ scatty.

So, Happy New Year, whenever it is.

Another common factor, of course, is that these three individuals were unceremoniously bumped off and so they could not be brought to trial for their crimes in The Hague or elsewhere.

Gaddafi’s friends, like Tony Blair and others in the West, will be glad that dead men can’t talk. Blair might have ended up being tried as a war criminal himself. This still might happen, of course.

Then it starts to get a bit confusing. Al Qaeda is evil. Terribly evil. They carried out 9/11 (allegedly) and our freedoms have been curtailed because of it. BUT, Libyan al Qaeda are good; really rather pleasant fellows, who the UK and USA supported to help take over Libya.

No, that can’t be right. Is it? I think it might be.

Another anomaly is the enormous number of pictures of a dead and dying Gaddafi, yet we weren’t allowed to see even a dead bin Laden. He was whisked off and dumped in the sea quicker than you could say, “fake bin Laden video”.

And Libya has oil, just like Iraq. Worse dictators like Mugabe and the North Korean midget don’t have oil, so naturally they get left to carry on being complete savages to their people and Obama receives a Nobel Peace Prize for liberating, erm, the oil and infrastructure into the hands of transnational corporations.

The fact is that Libya refused to be part of the globalist system, like other Arab and North African countries, with their independent banks, and so they are being reigned in under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

As Rolf would say, “Can you tell what it is yet?”

It’s a con. A truly evil con almost without parallel.

Gaddafi was undoubtedly a horror, but I have a feeling that the people of Libya will get an even worse system of government, and the world a deadlier foe.

St Mary's Rector Paul Smith in a dark church in a dead country.

Firstly, apologies fellow sojourners for not writing in ten days. The spirit of blogging was low in me. Of all the garbage in the news lately, this is the one which has my fingers furiously tapping the keyboard again. You might be wondering why another silly health and safety story got me back on the trail, but I was incensed by a) the way people blindly accept these stupid rules and b) where the priorities lie for the ‘authorities’ who lord over us.

A church is refusing to change a light bulb because it says overzealous health and safety rules mean it would cost £500 to change the £2 fixture.

Health and safety rules mean scaffolding is required whenever a bulb needs replacing in the 30ft internal roof at St Mary’s Church in Cottingham, Humberside. The church says the rules mean they cannot simply use ladders to change the bulb.

The staggering cost of performing the basic task means the church has to wait until a number of lights have popped before using scaffolding to replace the bulbs.

What’s wrong with folk? Some suit from the council turns up and tells them to stop changing the bulbs the way they have done for the past century and they all crumple like rag dolls and end up living like this…

Not surprisingly, the clergy and congregation could be forgiven for taking a dim view, as it makes it hard to see the hymn books.

St Mary’s Rector Father Paul Smith said: “Because of health and safety rules now, people can’t take up a very long ladder to change the light when the tubes go.

“So every time we need to have some bulbs replaced we hang on until a few need replacing before we get someone in with scaffolding.”

Take the ladder out; I won’t tell anyone. But I know one or two people who would: the sort of people who think the government is God and if you disobey a rule, no matter how obscure, ridiculous or unjust, your ‘crimes’ need to be exposed.

The 14th-century church in Hallgate has 30 internal roof lights and about a quarter of the 500-watt lights have gone out. Father Smith said: “The thing is, you can have new bulbs put in one week and then two or three more will go the next week and you are plunged into semi-darkness.

“You will lose one and you can cope with that, but then the next one will go and you have a really dark spot.

“It is not a very light building anyway. At the moment it’s very dark in the evenings because so many lights have gone.

“We don’t want to get the scaffolding until it’s absolutely necessary because we don’t want to be doing it every single time.

As it’s a 14th-century church, why don’t they go back to using candles?

“Health and safety concerns also rule out candlelight as an alternative for the grade one listed building.”

The whole country is turning into a Monty Python sketch!

“There may soon be light at the end of the tunnel for St Mary’s. The village church is now looking at installing an LED (light-emitting diode) lighting system. LEDs have a longer lifetime so the lights would not have to be so frequently replaced.”

Not replacing bulbs would save the church valuable funds at a time when costs are high. The church has had £30,000 of roof lead stolen in five raids in the past three years, including the latest theft in August.

I trust there are health and safety measures in place to protect the thieves when they make their sixth trip to steal lead from the roof, while the cops are busy questioning evil light-bulb-changing vicars.

Father Smith said stolen lead is being replaced with stainless steel in a bid to deter the thieves. Villagers have rallied round to help with fundraising, with the church’s recent annual Gift Day raising about £6,000.

Well, six grand can buy a few guard dogs to tear the limbs off the thieving swine, thus saving a fortune on having the roof fixed every few months.

Can you believe all this stuff? This country is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life! THIS IS AN EX-COUNTRY!!

This is how justice works in Iran: if they can’t get you one way, they fabricate, manipulate and manoeuvre to ensure their pre-ordained sentence is effected.

We do not believe you, Iran, and if Pastor Nadarkhani is killed, we will know exactly why. You have thousands of years of culture, yet you can still treat people like this? Why are you going backwards?

The inspiration for the title of this post!

I happened to see part of the EastEnders ‘omnibus’ edition this afternoon in someone else’s house. We watched for about forty minutes before we saw any of the characters as much as raise a smile. It should be renamed MiseryVille.

I haven’t watched this feast of insanity for years and I hardly knew any of the characters, but it was the same old Albert Square: just wall-to-wall arguments, basically, with the usual insults thrown in, like “you cow” and “slag”.

I’m so glad I no longer pay for this stuff to be made.

My annoyance at the fact that people have to buy a TV licence to watch any live broadcast television even if they never tune in to the British Brainwashing Corporation has been equalled by the BBC’s announcement that BC and AD are to lose favour, with BCE and CE preferred to avoid offending non-Christians.

The Corporation’s religion website states that it opts for the “religiously neutral” Common Era and Before Common Era, rather than Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ.

It goes on: “As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.”

So where is the BBC’s remit to be impartial when British traditions are at stake?

But critics said the changes were meaningless because, just like AD and BC, the alternative terms still denote years in relation to the life of Christ.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said: “These changes are unnecessary and they don’t achieve what the BBC wants them to achieve.

“Whether you use Common Era or Anno Domini, the date is actually still the same and the reference point is still the birth of Christ.”

It’s a tough one for the Beeb. Just how will they erase every aspect of our Christian heritage from the nation’s psyche? I guess the only fair thing to do in order not to cause offence to the usual suspects is for the BBC to start using the Islamic calendar, or Hijri calendar. So, let’s just get it over with – it isn’t AD 2011, it’s 1432 AH. Got that?

And what about our days and months, which are named after pagan gods and Roman emperors. I actually find this offensive. Is this any different from saying Vishnuday or Allahtober? But can you imagine the fuss if the days and months were named after Jewish prophets and the apostles of Christ?

Remember the words of Lenin, “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

The Marxists at the BBC are just using political correctness as an excuse to do what they always wanted. Their time has come. Like in North Korea and China and other dictatorships, Christianity is an enemy because it is about self-control, not state control.

But of course, our heritage, customs and values help to cement us together as a people (wherever these things come from and whatever anyone’s opinion of them is), so removing them will destroy our culture – and that is the aim.

The Telegraph continues,

As well as the BBC’s Religion and Ethics website, its Learning and GCSE Bitesize websites also use the alternative terms, which have also been used in some news bulletins and on some programmes.

The BBC said last night: “The BBC has not issued guidance on the dates system. Both AD and BC, and BE and BCE are widely accepted dates systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.”

But we all know about salami slice tactics and slippery slopes. For example, there have been calls for Songs of Praise to be ‘multi-faith’ and let’s be honest, it’s probably going to happen one day soon, just as Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day” already has.

According to the Daily Mail,

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, of the Muslim Institute, said: ‘I don’t know anyone who has been offended by AD and BC, so why change them?’

But Rabbi Jonathan Romain, from Maidenhead Synagogue, said he could see the logic behind the change.

That first quote is interesting, if true. The second is understandable from a Jewish perspective!

There is a classic comment on the Mail’s website from someone called Scott,

Surprised they didn’t call it (BCC) Before Climate Change and (ACC) After Climate Change? It is the new religion afterall.

As a footnote, and just to illustrate how deeply this anti-British, anti-Christian agenda has infested even some churches to the core, I have just read this:

But the Church of England is considering rejecting England’s patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims.

How many Muslims have been “offended”? How many English people are now offended?! I’m not English, yet I am offended.

Apparently, St Alban’s flag is a diagonal yellow cross on a blue background “that bears a strong similarity to St Andrew’s cross”.

It also shares the same colours with the EU flag!

Maybe the Church of England will recommend ditching the St. George flag for the EU flag. I’m sure the BBC would jump at the chance.

We’re in big trouble here.

I came 48th in the Scottish Top 50 last year, but there is only a Top 25 this year, so I knew it would be touch and go whether I could improve that much, but thanks to you who voted, I made it at number 22.

(Interestingly, there was a list of Top 50 Welsh blogs. )

I also made the Top 100 non-aligned blogs at number 55 and the Top 300 overall at number 244.

This year saw the first awards for individual bloggers (not just their blogs). There was no Scottish blogger award, but I won a Top 50 non-aligned blogger badge (36th place) and an overall Top 300 badge (243rd).

I’m hardly Guido (I don’t have the time to be Guido, although I’ll do this full-time if someone wants to pay me!), but it’s onwards and upwards, so thanks a million if you voted for me and my blog.

How much more are governments, known liars to everyone, likely to conspire against us?

It is beyond doubt reading through the list, that people in positions of power will manipulate, steal and even kill to get their agenda passed.

The Daily Mail has published an article, One in seven believe U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks in conspiracy, which is based on a poll for the BBC Two programme, The Conspiracy Files – Ten Years On.

The telephone survey conducted by Gfk NOP found that 14 per cent of Britons believed that there was a wider conspiracy involving the US administration.

The Mail article was fair, and nice to see a picture of Alex Jones in the mainstream British press, but I imagine that the BBC programme will be another “hit piece” like their previous propaganda programmes.

What I found most interesting about the Mail’s article were the readers’ comments and the fact that (at the time of writing) the pro-conspiracy comments are the ones being favoured with green arrows, although I see that Infowars has linked to it, so that should have helped.

But the really important thing is that, as is normal with such comments, the “Truthers” tend to come over as intelligent and willing to explain why they believe what they do, and the people who believe the Government’s version of events have a strange inability to form any sort of argument at all, instead, resorting to their usual comfort blankets of name-calling and general abuse, fake patriotism, weepy emotion and appeals for “respect for the dead” and of course the exhibition of total trust of government and unwillingness to personally evaluate the situation: “I refuse to believe the government would do that”.

I hope to write a few more posts on the attacks of 9/11 in the run-up to the tenth anniversary just nine days away, but I just wanted to draw your attention to the quality of comment from these people who, for whatever reason, believe the government over the evidence of their own senses.

The simple answer is the right one. Islamic Jihadists planned it and did it. End of story.

- kevin webb, accrington lancs, 29/8/2011

Kevin sounds delusional or perhaps scared. “End of story” means that, typically, he is convinced he is right, but doesn’t have the knowledge to debate it at all.

I have not read this rubbish just the head lines and how any body can think that the americans could do such a thing is complete and utter rubbish , if you say something to yourself often enough you will believe it so stop …………they would not do such a thing R I P The lost souls of 9/11 and my thoughts and best wishes are sent to the families and friends of all those who were murdered on that awful day

- lynn , by the sea wish i was i new york new york but will keep dreaming …., 29/8/2011

Lynn just reads headlines, apparently, then gets bossy, “So stop” and then insists that the government “would not do such a thing” and finishes on a flurry of sentimentality.

I agree with Paul. When people believe a conspiracy theory they cant let it go even when you give thwm proof. I can give a great deal of proof but the still wouldnt believe it.

- Lewis, England, 29/8/2011 18:54

Lewis has a ‘great deal of proof’. Okay, Lewis, let’s hear it… No? Didn’t think we would get any – just the usual hot air and lazy typing.

The sad thing about these ‘1 in 7′ morons who always believe in conspiracies about almost every international event, is that they also vote in elections! No wonder we end up with incompetent and inexperienced fools in high political office like Obama and his cronies. I’ll bet that every one of these idiots also believe that aliens are amongst us, and little green men from Mars are ready to invade!

- lesliemoss, malibu USA, 29/8/2011 18:45

The man from Malibu here uses the name-calling technique and introduces “little green men from Mars” into the equation because he is desperately short of ideas. And in my experience, 9/11 Truthers are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

Wow, the shrinks must be having a field day with all these loonies on the loose……what a disgrace to the memories of those lost on that awful day. You “theorists” should be ashamed of yourselves…

- cayman214, anywhere, USA, 29/8/2011 18:33

Can these people not debate AT ALL? They have serious problems – and note that I should be “ashamed” of myself. I wonder what he thinks of the many truth groups set up by people who lost loved ones on 9/11. He probably doesn’t even know they exist, just like the damning evidence against the US Administration.

Anyone who thinks that the USA government were involved in any way, is completely off their trolley.

- Above Average, Here, 29/8/2011 18:24

..and the earth is flat and the sun orbits it.

- Rolf Wittwer, Zürich Switzerland, 29/8/2011 17:59

DM readers are the new Sun readers; uneducated, uninformed, scientifically illiterate. How stupid do you have to be to buy into idiotic conspiracy theories, created in the muslim world where everything is a conspiracy. I despair at the intelligence of DM readers – they would have been called peasants in earlier times.

- Educated, UK, 29/8/2011 17:52

And most of them are DM readers! What a bunch of wackos ! read the comments that are getting the most green arrows and then try and tell me that your average DM reader is normal. And to think these people are walking the streets without any supervision! Scary.

- Robert, Manchester, 29/8/2011 17:39

Wow, this story about conspiracy wackos has certainly brought out the conspiracy wackos. As with many conspiracy theories (including the classic moon landing one), there is a superficial logic to the claims that suckers in the ignorant. But they don’t hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Trouble is that once people buy into a conspiracy theory they refuse to let it go and admit their ignorance, so there’s little point in trying to show them the evidence. It’s a bit like arguing with a creationist in that respect.

- Paul, London, 29/8/2011 17:35

Just some more general insults there. I can imagine Paul “arguing with a creationist”. It would go something like, “You’re a wacko, blah, blah, blah… ”

Evidence and facts to people like this are obviously an inconvenience. They think they are to be considered right for no other reason than they say so and if you don’t submit to their viewpoint then you are a moron/idiot/nutter…

Being an American I find this article ugly and offensive! I was there on 9/11…in NYC and believe me as much crap my government is responsible in the world in the past an present this is one atrocity that cannot be put at the door of Washington! The cowards that planned these attacks are thank god dead and as a nation we have survived and became stronger…only an ignorant, uneducated ass could come up with this plot theory! What would the purpose be?! Enough! It’s a disgrace to even go there!

- D.A.ward, London, UK, 29/8/2011 17:33

This person was in New York on 9/11 so obviously he knows everything that went on. Riiiiiight. Then he reckons that the USA has become stronger in the past decade (with the usual accompanying offensive name-calling). Clearly, the US economy is in deep, deep trouble. In fact, it is hard to think of one way in which the USA has become stronger.

Where did they conduct this survey, in a mental institution? Either that or this is a new low for those who love to hate.

- Whit, Houston USA, 29/8/2011 17:14

After the childish first comment, we get a familiar twist with this one: if your opinion is different it means you “hate”. All those 9/11 families for truth groups must really hate their dead relatives.

I have done research on this and found out just how wrong the conspireacy theiorts are. They were quite convicing at the time but they missed out alot more then people realise. For those who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I recomend you go to the website debunking 9/11 myths. It will explain pretty much everything. To all those who are gonna tell me I wrong or low rate my comment and say I’m wrong. I say do proper research.

- Lewis, England, 29/8/2011 17:03

It’s Lewis again. He’s done some research, but he still doesn’t tell us what he’s found.

Well I was there and the idiots who think this was a conspiracy are idiots.

- Ruth, Everywhere and anywhere, 29/8/2011

Okay…

Let me guess…these 1 in 7 include leftist, global warming nut jobs, ACORN and other dissaffected USA Bashers. Now I can see 1 in 7 in the case.

- Laurence , Pewsey, WILTS UK, 29/8/2011

Chances are that 9/11 Truthers are more likely to be wise to the carbon scam as well.

The truthers are, without question, the most obnoxious people on the internet, and that takes some doing. Every single video on yutube in any way related to 9/11 is spammed to death with brainless comments like “inside job”, “illuminati” and “new world order”, perhaps with a reference to operation northwoods to give their argument “overwhelming proof”. But ignoring their rather disturbing paranoia, their theories are complete nonsense, and have been debunked numerous times. e.g. In answer to the top rated comment, the BBC said that because they had been told Building 7 would collapse at any moment. That’s to say nothing of the “missile hit the pentagon” theory, or the “explosives were planted in the twin towers without anybody noticing” idea, or my personal favourite, the “no planers” who believe that whatever hit each tower was NOT a plane! Just grow up truthers, you embarrass yourself with your ridiculous rants.

- pedantic hamsik, bratislava, slovakia,

…obviously unaware of his own ridiculous rant.

There is no evidence supporting these claims. Some people a so stupid.

- Tman666, Surrey, England, 29/8/2011 15:22

Amusing though it is to be rebuked for being ’stupid’ by someone who cannot spell the most simple of words, this person should stop being lazy and look for the evidence. There is enough of it out there.

Those people who believe this need to get glass belt buckles so they can see where they are going. All these theorist are just a bunch on c**p. They also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Also that the world is flat so dont go to close to the edge as you might fall off.

- Charles Frost, Missouri City, Texas,

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting bored with this now. I tend not to call people names like “idiot” or “moron” but if anyone deserves it, I guess these people do.

Anyone who believes in government involvement also has to assume that George Bush had the brains to arrange it. Big fail.

- Teresa, New Zealand, 29/8/2011 14:21

This is a semi-sensible comment, but it assumes that Bush was in charge rather than being just a puppet.

Poor demented fools because someone starts the rumour on the web and produces “proof” that the US government were involved they believe it. I would put money on it that the majority of them think obama is a good president as well that is the level of their intelligence.

- KEITH BEVERLEY, Gillingham Dorset,

Keith thinks it started as an internet rumour. Does this make him a “Poor demented fool”?

Okay, that’s enough. I am shocked by the level of ignorance there. If I was brand new to 9/11 truth and I read these comments, it would hardly be worth my while investigating the evidence because it is obvious which side has the critical thinkers, not to mention over 1,500 architects and engineers in support.

This matters immensely. Major wars and restrictions on our freedom are the products of these attacks.

Professor Dawkins seems to think so. Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is one of the candidates for the Republican nomination in next year’s US presidential election, responded to a mother and son at a New Hampshire campaign event who asked him if he believed in evolution with this:

It’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.

Dawkins’ reply was issued on an article he wrote for The Washington Post’s On Faith:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office.

From what I hear about Rick Perry generally, he wouldn’t be my choice of candidate, but Dawkins is of the opinion that merely questioning the Theory of Evolution makes him unsuitable for high office.

Dawkins then either tries to give the impression that Darwin’s theories are facts, or else deliberately tries to confuse “evolution” and the “Theory of Evolution” in people’s minds.

Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well.

Before I was banned from Dawkins’ blog, I used to write there that evolutionists believe that the Theory of Evolution is a fact and I was always rebuked by Dawkins’ followers and told that it must be regarded as a theory.

Maybe they think that their honesty in the matter makes what else they have to say more credible.

I’m stating the obvious now, but I’ll say it anyway – people like Dawkins seem to think it is okay for them to shove their beliefs down other people’s throats constantly, while us Creationists are to sit in the corner with dunces’ hats on and keep quiet because we are ‘fools’.

The fact that the Dawkins’s of the world hate people having different viewpoints indicates that their approach to science is completely wrong and it suggests that they are uncomfortable with their own beliefs.

They would like to ban Creation Science from every classroom on the planet.

Think about that. They want to ban science if it is not the science that they *believe* in. Why wouldn’t they want schoolchildren to know about both sides then decide for themselves what to believe?

I suspect it is for the same reason that when I was a Mormon, I was told not to look at “anti-Mormon” websites because they were full of “lies”; the Devil would use these sites to try and turn me away from the “truth”.

Have you ever heard Dawkins admit that Creation Science actually involves as much real science as evolution science? Reading some of the articles in the Creation Ministries’ publications and on their website makes this clear.

Perhaps Dawkins’ greatest trick is to deny that Creationists use proper scientific methods, in the hope that his believers will suppose that scripture and science are incompatible with each other.

Whatever his attraction, his magic works on millions of people to the extent that:

a) They believe him without question.

b) They mock others who believe differently – or worse: seek to silence dissent.

c) They use lies to limit where Creationists can work, such as by claiming that scientists who believe in Creationism don’t understand modern scientific methodology and could therefore be a danger.

d) They believe that all religions and faiths are basically the same – just as if one were to believe in a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

Dawkins has a multi-million pound business to protect.

I am just interested in the truth. It is very odd that people like Dawkins who claim to be “free-thinkers” should be so scathing of those who think freely and come to a different conclusion.

“Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:21