I only just scraped in at number 48, but I should be promoted to 47 as Al Jahom has admitted to not being Scottish. He says, I just happen to support Scottish independence for English reasons. I don’t know why he wants a weakened Union as long as we remain part of the EU. That’s not going to do England any favours at all. Or Scotland.

At least I beat most of the several blogging Scottish MPs, MSPs and Councillors. Tom Harris was numero uno for the third year running and a Cllr Fraser Macpherson, who is a LibDem Councillor in Dundee, was in 18th place.

The deserved winner, in my opinion, moved up a place into second spot: Underdogs Bite Upwards. Old Leggy has a handle on most things and writes with wit and style.

Glad to see Subrosa is also in the Top 10 and The Marmalade Sandwich a new entry at number 30.

So, thank you again.

From this philosophy, developed by Scottish amateur geologist, James Hutton, assumptions about the earth’s past are made – that is, assumptions based on a philosophy and not on scientific evidence.

For example, when a modern geologist sees a massive canyon with a tiny river running through it, he assumes that this tiny river carved out the canyon, and of course, that would have taken millions of years. This assumption is based on a particular philosophy which has become the predominant one and so the assumptions are taken as facts. They aren’t facts, they are assumptions, based on the philosophy that “the present is the key to the past”.

By believing in uniformitarianism, the scientist is presented with a big problem. He has to make the evidence fit the philosophy. So, a tiny river must have carved out the Grand Canyon; mountain ranges must have developed over millions of years by tiny, gradual movements of the earth’s crust.

Evolution Theory came along shortly afterwards. When scientists (natural philosophers) knew that evolution was a fact, they had to fit it into their philosophy of long ages and belief that “the present is the key to the past”

We all know that creatures evolve. A mutation in a bug can produce a resistance to insecticide. With billions of insects, one such mutation is possible; indeed can be expected. Natural selection means that most of the planet has life present, but this is due to fairly simple differences, for example, animals with longer fur survive in colder climates and wingless beetles survive on windy islands, where their now extinct winged predecessors were being blown out to sea. When a really big change occurs, such as a beetle loses its wings, it is still due to a very minor genetic change. The information that says “make wings” stopped working. All the information for wings is still in the beetle’s DNA, so that, if some time in the future these wingless beetles were seen to have sprouted wings, it is only because a mutation caused the gene to be switched on again. No amazing, very gradual, process has happened over millions of years to produce these complex wings. The information was there all along. Just like with the blind cavefish that can see again “after millions of years” when the gene pool is improved with blind cavefish from a separate population.

This is the vital information I wish to relay: that these scientists gave evolution abilities which it does not have. They had to in order to fit evolution into their philosophy. The mistakes were compounded. People were further separated from the truth. The layman became blinded by millions and billions of years and therefore believed that anything is possible given a vast amount of time.

It is, of course, theoretically possible, but so are lots of things, like drawing out all four aces from a thousand decks of cards consecutively. It’s never going to happen, though. The life we see around us is far too complex to have developed by random mutations and natural selection. The genetic information which builds complex structures has been there since the Creation. Mutations only enable creatures to evolve from their created state.

This is why we don’t see real evidence of transitional life forms. I discussed Archaeopteryx on Tom Harris’s blog earlier this month. Archaeopteryx is perhaps the best known alleged transitional fossil, even though it is a fully formed bird with wings, feathers and avian lungs.

The fossil record does not support the Theory of Evolution. It supports an ordered creation – one where relatively minor genetic changes enable animals and plants to adapt to various climates, terrains and diets.

To sum up:

Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist. As natural philosophers started becoming known as “scientists” in the increasingly materialistic 19th Century, they had to incorporate evolution into their philosophy of long ages while simultaneously rejecting the Creator, or at the very least devaluing Him. This necessitated massively overestimating the capability of organisms to evolve. Tragically, this catalogue of errors is now considered to be the truth by most people: people who know little or nothing of where their beliefs come from, but will defend them anyway. 

I don’t know if buses are still carrying this advert, but I came across it lately on an old leaflet from 2008 which was in my “to read” pile. I have finally read it! The leaflet was issued by Arab World Ministries whose noble mission is “Building Christ’s Church among Arab peoples.”

Before discussing the best way of bringing the truth of the Gospel to Muslims and Arabs of other faiths, I want to comment on this strange advert. Although it is not exactly topical news, I hope you will stick with me as I try to uncover what Muslims expect from the rest of us in Britain.

The first thing I noticed on the advert was the cute child. He’s harmless isn’t he? Wouldn’t hurt a fly. And he is wearing a baseball cap, which is even on back-to-front, so he is completely Westernised. One of us. Nothing to fear. Islam is Peace.

Then I wondered about this thing about being proud. Isn’t pride a great sin in Islam? In other words, the advert is just saying what the campaign people think we want to hear.

Then I thought, well wait a tick. Are they ‘proud’ to be British or just proud to be British Muslims? There is a huge difference, which we probably aren’t supposed to notice. Being British and being a Muslim are totally separate, let’s call them, conditions. I am British – and Scottish, and a Christian. I have never described myself as a British Christian. Why should I? I am these two things, plus many more (cue hilarious suggestions in the comments section).

Am I proud to be British? I try not to be proud of anything, as it is a sin, indeed it cometh before destruction. I am glad to be British and Scottish. Even if I was prone to pride (okay, I succumb like everyone else sometimes. I’m not perfect), I am certainly not proud of the laughing stock our country has become due to our politicians enslaving us with almost every EU, UN and envirofascist diktat they are presented with.

How could anyone, Muslim or otherwise, be proud of 200,000 abortions a year (apart from Diane Abbott, maybe, and her fellow bloodthirsty feministas)?

How could anyone, Muslim or otherwise, be proud of our government waging immoral wars for corporate empire?

Let’s be honest, the modern Western way of life is totally at odds with Islam. Can a true Muslim be proud of being British? Is it really possible? Maybe being a British Muslim is something they can take some comfort in as it is bound to be better than being a Muslim in most other parts of the globe.

It doesn’t mean they are willing to assimilate or give ground to the people who live in the country they are pretending to be proud of.

When we visit the Islam is Peace website, we are greeted by the cute wee boy again. He looks remarkably light-skinned on my monitor. Coincidence? They tell us that Islam is a complete way of life and the unifying belief in one God (sic) brings Muslims from all over the world together as one family.

The “family” therefore is Islam, not Britain, unless perhaps we become another Islamic nation.

On the campaign video, the first thing they tell us is, “Islam is NOT about hostility”. The campaign was begun as a response to the bombings of 7/7/05, but even so, I can’t think of any other religion who would use this as an introduction to understanding their belief system.

Imagine a video intended to give a good impression of Catholicism and starting with, “Catholicism is NOT about systematic child abuse by priests”. I wouldn’t give credence to anything which followed that statement, would you?

After another smiling child, we read, “Islam is NOT violence”. This is followed by a smiling baby. It’s probably not worth your time watching this video. To sum it up, some Muslim ladies with English accents say that they are peaceful and British and two white men – someone from the advertising company and a bus driver – say what a good idea it is to advertise peace on buses.

Another video outlines the campaign’s “5 Point Plan”. Number one is to fight Islamophobia; to monitor and fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs.

Ostensibly about peace, we can see straight away that the campaign is about much more than fighting towards this noble objective. It’s about power. Of course it is; Islam is the family.

Number Two is about creating dialogue between the Muslim Community and the rest of Britain, ensuring that [the Muslim's] voice is always in the mainstream media. To partner with business and government to ensure [Muslims'] concerns like racism and social exclusion are understood.

The rest of Britain is seen as a separate entity, which is why they can only be proud to be British Muslims and not proud to be British. To partner with business and government is, of course, code for more legislation to have our society changed to suit them. It makes sense, though. The more ground the 97% of non-Muslims give, the less agro we are likely to get in return. Except that, because Islam is the family and an admittedly separate community, there is no middle ground and concessions will be neverending once they start, and they have started.

Number Three calls on the government to make lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world, helping eliminate the injustices that foment division and nurture violence.

Peace in Britain, therefore, depends on our government’s foreign policy. I am dead against these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, as I am sure is the majority of the UK, but I don’t threaten the lives of innocent civilians because I oppose them.

Number Four is about being creative so that Muslims have [their] finger on the pulse on the British mainstream to understand what [the Muslim 'Community'] wants the world to hear.

The BBC has already been found to be pro-Muslim and anti-Christian.

Number Five is about dialogue and friendship, to create a culture of understanding, because Mohammed said that anyone who believes in Allah, let him be good to his neighbour.

There will be peace just as soon as we become an Islamic country. Except that there won’t, because the inevitable factions will develop and we know what happens then. Even if they don’t, the rest of us (which will be far less than the current 97% after further social engineering and Cameron’s crusade to welcome Turkey to our EU family) will be living under a repressive Islamic regime.

The only conclusion I can reach after looking at this campaign – and this one is meant to reach out to all of Britain with peace and understanding – is that Islam offers no peace and no freedom.

This is what that Arab World Ministries leaflet says,

“It is not hard for us to meet and make friends with Muslim people. They are warm, friendly people waiting to meet us. Speak to the Pakistani shopkeeper. Talk to the Muslim ladies as you wait with them at the school gate. Invite your neighbour to tea. Before long you will have a friend with whom you can share all sorts of matters, including your relationship with God.”

Christians have many duties. One is to bring souls to Christ. Not by the sword nor with threats of violence. We are to love our neighbour regardless of foreign policy or media brainwashing. We are to help the poor and infirm and demand justice for the afflicted.

Our society, largely based on Judeo-Christian values, was successful because justice had a sure foundation, not one based wholly on the agenda of whatever political system was in place or on a religion that calls for severe beatings for women who have been gang-raped.

A few people were persuaded to fight our way of life due to the mind-control efforts of the early feminists and ‘gay rights’ militants. Like Islam in the UK, gentle persuasion and reason weren’t an option for them to change society due to their limited numbers, so it had to be achieved by stealth: legislation against perceived injustices and manipulation of the media (and therefore, the people) – exactly what the Islam is Peace 5 Point Plan is advocating.

After decades of this re-engineering, those of us who retain some sense of reality have become the ones subjected to abuse. We are the ones being called names. The media have managed to make patriotism seem like xenophobia: the “Little Englander” who dares to want to preserve his civilised society. Our national flag is considered by some to be racist. Taxi drivers and binmen in various parts of England were prohibited from displaying St. George flags during the World Cup.

It seems that pride, for those who want it, is only for the select few. You can be proud to be a British Muslim and proud to be gay and of course, proud to be a woman who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Personally, I can live without pride. I have seen how it afflicts others.

This weekend is UK Black Pride 2010. There are many black singers, speakers and DJs taking part (and a couple of token whites, like Peter Tatchell). As you can see from their website masthead, it’s a great opportunity to get up and boogie like a mad thing, if you are black and, er, gay.

The Pink News reports,

Phyllis Opoku-Gyimah, UK Black Pride director, said: “I’m thrilled that Stonewall has formalised its long standing support for our community-led initiative. The help they have gifted us will help to ensure that we put on a strong event that gives space to non-white LGBT people to showcase the best of who we are, as we see ourselves, rather than how others choose to portray us.

These days, non-white (my emphasis, above) includes Hispanic folk. Funny that, because when I was young, they were white. I guess they serve a better purpose to certain people when they are reclassified as ‘black’ even though they are nothing of the sort. It means there are fewer of us evil ‘whites’.

The list of sponsors is interesting. Stonewall have stumped up to help fund this ‘gay apartheid’. It seems strange that they are encouraging division amongst their ranks. What isn’t strange is that the TUC and some of the big unions are sponsors. It also comes as no surprise that the Metropolitan Police are sponsoring the event.

Of course, the name of the game is dividing us. I remember listening to a programme on Radio 4 a few years ago about this club for the blind, gay, Jewish community of North London. I thought that surely there can’t be any more than a couple of dozen of them. The government would be thrilled if we could all be reduced into even smaller ‘communities’, ideally consisting of one person, so that we would never be tempted to exchange opinions or concerns with anyone outside our own tiny peculiar clan.

People must stop falling for all this divisive nonsense being carried out in the name of equality, diversity and ‘community cohesion’.

And ‘pride’ cometh before destruction.

Parents who smoke in cars in front of small children are “committing a form of child abuse”.

My parents smoked in the car. I wouldn’t say that it thrilled me, but abuse? I think not. With the windows open, most of the smoke was expelled, otherwise my dad wouldn’t have been able to see where he was going.

That would have been dangerous, I admit.

It would also have been dangerous to ban him from smoking in the car, as gagging for a ciggie is not particularly pleasant and concentration is affected. So obviously the government has banned the drivers of artic lorries from smoking in their cabs even when they are driving hundreds of miles alone. Clearly, the believers of third-hand smoke have been convinced that this bizarre ‘danger’ is more deadly than a 30 ton lorry being driven by someone who can’t concentrate.

Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has condemned society’s attitudes to food, alcohol and cigarettes.

In a letter to the Observer newspaper, he said parents had to take more responsibility for their children’s health – and set a good example.

He said irresponsible behaviour led to high levels of disease and early death.

This from the ‘health’ service which carries out most of Britain’s 200,000 annual abortions and kills thousands a year in other ways.

Professor Field, who represents 42,000 GPs across the UK, added: “I suppose the same people also smoke at home in front of their children.

You have to admire the boy’s flawless logic.

“Evidence from the US indicates that more young children are killed by parental smoking than by all other unintentional injuries combined.”

Now, where can we find this ‘evidence’? Of all the children I grew up with – and every one I can think of lived with at least one parent who smoked – not one ever keeled over and died. Now all in our 40s, none has yet keeled over and died. Of the 700 or so kids at my primary school and well over 1,000 at each of my two secondary schools,  I similarly don’t remember any deaths other than one murder.

Other health experts have previously called for smoking to be banned in cars when children are present, but the government’s recent decision not to review existing smoking legislation means that move is unlikely.

In his letter, Professor Field says adults need to take responsibility for their own health too.

Let’s be honest. Most people aren’t interested in following a strict regime the self-appointed experts deem will give them a healthier lifestyle. It’s just never going to happen. A good friend of mine is ‘not allowed’ to eat cake because of his cholesterol level. He says that I should get mine checked out. And be told I am not allowed to eat cake ever again? No way, Jose. I am never going to deprive myself of cake. What sort of a life is that?

He added: “The truth, which may be unpalatable to some, is that too many of us, too often, neglect too many aspects of our own personal health behaviour, and this is leading to increasing levels of ill-health and early death.

And of course, the aspartame and other poisons in our food and drink no doubt don’t figure. Neither do the poisons in the vaccines given to children. Now that’s what I call child abuse.

“Public health is a sensitive subject.

“It’s not easy to strike the right balance between protecting people’s sensibilities and delivering the hard facts about their personal behaviours that are ultimately shortening their lives.

“Too many people do not face up to the hard facts, as they perceive them to be an attack aimed, in particular, at the poorer members of our society, when it is impossible to argue on medical or ethical grounds, that such behaviour is acceptable.”

Why do people in the best-off areas live for a couple of decades more, on average, than those in the most deprived areas, like the East End of Glasgow? Especially when poorer people are less likely to have a car in which to abuse their children with smoke!

The blog post is entitled ’smoking contradictions’ and here’s another funny thing:

A mountain to climb. Easier if you're a smoker?

A lady asked to come round during the week to try and persuade me to buy some advertising space. She told me on the phone that she would be about five minutes as there isn’t much to explain, so I agreed. We ended up talking about a great many things in the hour and twenty minutes she was here! She has done an amazing amount for charity, including a trek to Machu Picchu, the lost city of the Incas.

There is a place on the trail called “Dead Woman’s Pass” where anyone showing any sign of altitude sickness is turned around and sent back down, as it can kill. Several people were told they could not continue the climb and every one of these was a non-smoker. Some were muscle-bound men who were reduced to tears at having to abandon their journey.

I don’t know why the smokers fared better, but she reckoned that smokers are used to less oxygen in the blood and so could cope better with the high altitudes. She said there were wee Peruvian guides running up and down and smoking away.

A word of warning though! After a whole day on the trip without a smoke, she lit up in the evening and after a couple of puffs, duly collapsed. She awoke wrapped up in a foil blanket.

It’s a funny old world!

Subrosa writes: Robert Whatley, 70, was pulled over in his Range Rover for driving without a seat belt as he drove on a country road in Wales. It’s alleged officers tried to issue him with a fixed penalty notice but Mr Whatley drove off.

Two of Gwent’s ‘finest’ followed him along 8 miles of country lanes for 17 minutes before trying to stop the £60,000 Range Rover with a stinger device. At no time did he drive above 40mph. Mr Whatley stopped and you can see the actions of the police here. His lawyer has released this video.

You can read the rest here.

Two years ago, I wrote about what the outgoing chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry, thought of the current state of policing:

Worried about community support officers who are not trained to qualified officers’ standards, she is concerned that proper police officers will be brought in only for confrontation issues. As for the community support officers, she says,

“Part of their experience bank will always be missing, and the police service becomes this kind of paramilitary-type force. I know the Home Secretary says this isn’t what she wants – and it certainly isn’t what the public wants – but that is what is going to happen. The softer side of policing is disappearing, and I don’t think that can be a good thing.”

Strike a light, guv’nor. It’s nearly a quarter of a cent’ry old. Well, scuff my old boots!

Source. Thanks to Dave Gorman for tweeting it.

Our Dave has appointed himself chief supporter of Turkey’s entry to the EU. Instead of offering us a way back out from behind the New Iron Curtain, Cast-iron Cameron wants an EU with another 70 million Muslims in it.

Dave considers Britain’s best interests, and is as in tune with public opinion, as Gordon Brown at his best worst.

Although 37% of those surveyed would be ‘happy’ to go on holiday to Turkey, only 14% of the public would like to see the country join the EU, while double that number (28%) would ‘definitely not’ like to see Turkey join. These findings clearly indicate that PM David Cameron’s views on the matter are not shared by the general British public.

I would love to visit Turkey and see as much of the fascinating historical remains as possible, but I don’t want my taxes paying for their upkeep, while the Turks come here and take our jobs while demanding special treatment – or rather, given special treatment by British cowards terrified of losing their jobs or facing humiliation for saying or doing the “wrong” thing.

The debate about the EU has to move away from an economic one. “We would be worse off out, financially” say the EUrophiles. Even if that were true, which I doubt, “so what,” is what I say. What’s the use even of being a millionaire if you are serving a life sentence in jail?

David Cameron is just the latest globalist puppet defending Airstrip One against the powers of truth and freedom. Sovereignty will continue to leach out to the EU, UN and envirofascists as the government tries to get away with handing over our money to any EU or global institution demanding we pay for everything from renewing infrastructure in Eastern Europe to paying penance for the alleged climate change damage done to third world countries due to our industrial success.

The giant transnational corporations must also be made fatter. The corrupt WHO/UN just has to say the latest ‘flu scare is a “pandemic” and the government will order 50 million shots from Big Pharma. As with climate change, facts won’t matter. Someone in Brussels, Geneva or Washington will shout, “Jump” and Cameron will reply, “how high…would you like the British people to pay this time?”

To destroy this country and keep us as a deprived backwater of the globalists’ empire, they need to do exactly what they are doing:

Bankrupt us economically, via: ludicrous membership fees to be dictated to by the EU; the use of climate change laws/carbon credits to relocate our industry to the third world; wars; low wage migrants; a huge underclass on state benefits; getting half of school-leavers into further education which will leave them unemployed and with huge debts, when many of them should have been working all along.

Bankrupt us morally, intellectually and as a society, via: mass immigration; promotion of promiscuity; dumbed down ‘entertainment’; state education replaced with indoctrination; fearmongering; creating barriers to people meeting together via such devices as the smoking ban and ludicrous health & safety restrictions.

How can Cameron not see this? How much is he wilfully complicit in the destruction of our country?

Here is what some people have tweeted:

@NickHyde1993

RT @DaveMorgan25: Disgusting, inaccurate and pathetic article RT @StewartCowan: The long road to legalised paedophilia http://bit.ly/99LmG9

@TheStoob

@benandarnie I am speechless. Genuinely stunned at the level of hate @stewartcowan shows. Closet case I bet. Knob.

@JonnieMarbles

I agree with @benandarnie – @stewartcowan is a horrible, nasty homophobe. And he gives a rubbish blow job too.

There are other negative comments, but on the bright side: one positive one,

@xene68

@StewartCowan excellent post! This is such evil, and it can only get worse.

Exactly! The post was about how the social engineers are using homosexuality to try to legitimise paedophilia in our culture. Why don’t these people want to talk about that on Twitter?

I don’t hate anyone for engaging in homosexual acts. Sure, I think it’s disgusting and I hope and pray that those involved will waken up to a bright new dawn of understanding, but hatred? Certainly not. In fact, the love that I have for them is what drives me to write the way that I do and to describe the reality of what is going on in our country today in no uncertain terms.

The shows they watched included the popular soaps and talent shows, but they also hoped to find “positive portrayals” of homosexuals and bisexuals in The Gadget Show, Football Focus, You’ve Been Framed and Blue Peter.

Yes, Blue Peter.

Or maybe they chose these programmes specifically because they didn’t expect to see any mention of sexuality (of any sort) and so this would make their “findings” look better for them.

As I wrote on Anna’s blog, because homosexuals know that their behaviour is disgusting, the activists hope that the day will come when every single voice of dissent has been silenced forever and they can finally sit back and stop feeling dirty and guilty. They think that if we all accept them (via ‘education’ and mass media indoctrination), they will finally be able to accept themselves.

But my recent blog post which offers a cure for homosexual desire suggests that homosexuals will never be able to accept themselves in their current condition.

So what does this have to do with legalised paedophilia?

Consider this…

The law permitted two “consenting adults” over 21 of the same sex to engage in indecent sexual behaviour in private.

Over the following 40 years, the age has been reduced from 21 to 18 to 16 (i.e. legalised pederasty now).

The media has been instrumental in making all of this appear acceptable and will do so also with paedophilia.

There are already various people talking about children’s “sexual rights” and calls for the age of consent to be reduced further, including by Peter Tatchell.

There have been plans to change the law in N. Ireland (drawn up in London for the provincial guinea pigs) which would have enabled 13 year olds to legally have sex with each other (and an 18 year old man could legally have sodomised a 15 year old boy) and in 2008 Scotland’s children’s commissioner argued for much the same thing.

21 – 18 – 16 – 13 – ?

How low can this agenda get?

As Ed Balls again tries to push through his legislation which would compel all primary schoolchildren to be indoctrinated with sex ‘education’ from the age of 5 and the aforementioned Children’s Commissioner said that the Scottish Government should consult 8-year-olds on changes to the law on underage sex because it “affects” them and as parental rights are constantly being undermined (e.g. no opt-out for the proposed 5 year olds’ sex ed) then things will continue to get worse.

“Children’s rights” are at the expense of parental rights which in fact means that the State is assuming all the rights.

You may remember the fuss last year when the NHS in Sheffield issued a leaflet encouraging schoolchildren to have sex or masturbate twice a week to help their cardiovascular system.

The Mail also reminds us,

[The leaflets] came to light just a week after it emerged that teenagers who took part in a £6million Government initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies were more than twice as likely to fall pregnant as other girls.

The scheme tried to persuade girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

Standard Government-issue advice. No wonder we are where we are. While waiting for my recent doctor’s appointment, I had a good look at the posters on the walls. A number of them were directed at youngsters and reminded them of the confidentiality they are entitled to, i.e. the State can know, but not the parents or legal guardians.

When the media have done their ‘job’ once again of re-engineering the opinions of the masses, multitudes will be convinced that children should be having sex because it is a) their ‘right’ b) a healthy choice (with free contraception and abortion if required) and c) none of the parents’ damned business anyway.