Friday, April 04, 2014
Multicultural lover in Britain
A young mother has told how she feared for her life during a brutal attack by her ex boyfriend in which he gouged her eyes, repeatedly punched her in the face and almost bit her ear off.
Emma Hunt, 22, had just dropped her three-year-old daughter off at a nursery in Nottingham when Martell Campbell, 24, launched a savage on her in front of horrified parents and children.
The 24-year-old leapt out of bushes and grabbed Miss Hunt in a bear hug in the middle of the road.
He then punched her repeatedly in the face and dragged her on all fours before throwing her down between two parked cars.
He then gouged at her eyes and strangled her before trying to bite through her ear.
Nottingham Crown Court sentenced Campbell to six and a half years in jail for the November 6 assault, after he admitted wounding.
Ms Hunt, who was treated at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, said: 'My ear was hanging off, I had a broken nose, my knees were grazed and my face was bruised. 'I was in hospital all day and they had to sew the top part of my ear back on.
'I'm glad he's locked up and can leave me alone. I think he should have been jailed for longer though but didn't expect he would be.
'I was worried I was going to die, I can't really remember much of the attack but my only thoughts were that I wasn't going to see my daughter again.'
Ms Hunt revealed that Campbell had threatened to kill her the night before, but thought he was merely letting off steam. She said: 'He said he was going to come to the school and kill me. I was really shaken up but I didn't actually think he would attack me. I thought he was sounding off.
'I was walking back from the school and someone said to me that a big black guy was hiding in the bushes. 'Then I saw him and that is when he pounced on me. He's a lot bigger and stronger than me, I was just trying to defend myself.'
She first started dating Campbell six years ago but said he started getting 'weird' after the pair had a daughter together.
They broke up after four years but Miss Hunt allowed Campbell to continue seeing his child who is now three years old.
But she said Campbell suddenly changed in July last year and started stalking her and rummaging through her bins. She got a non-molestation order against him in October after Campbell hurled a brick through her window.
'But when it got to July of last year he turned a bit weird and started harassing me and stalking me. 'He smashed my windows and was going through my bins and he used to ask people where I was.
'We had an argument on the phone the night before he attacked me because I wouldn't get back with him.'
The court heard that Miss Hunt had warned staff at the school about him that morning, following his threats.
Campbell was serving a suspended prison sentence for assaulting another ex-partner and had been issued a non-molestation order to stay away from Ms Hunt three weeks before the attack.
Campbell, of Nottingham, was caught thanks to quick-thinking parents outside the school - including one who followed him and snapped his picture on her mobile phone.
Prosecutor Mark Achurch said that Ms Hunt suffered 'the worst pain she ever experienced' during the attack.
Errol Ballentyne, defending, said Campbell accepted he had lost his temper. He added: ‘He hadn't set out for matters to end where they did end. He had hoped to be able to talk to the complainant.’
The sentence was also welcomed by Val Lunn, chief executive officer of Women's Aid Integrated Services in Nottingham.
She said: ‘The severity of the sentence conveys a strong message that domestic violence will not be tolerated and perpetrators should expect to be held to account. ‘Women... have the right to live their lives free from the stress of violence.’
Teddy Roosevelt's Real Views on Immigration
Last Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden quoted Theodore Roosevelt out of context while delivering the keynote address at a meeting of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Biden was pushing the Obama Administration's desire to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants by citing the alleged views of a great and iconic American President who was also a Republican. Immigration "reform" is currently blocked in the GOP House.
Biden's quote of TR (unacknowledged from 1908) went as follows, "Americanism is not a question of birthplace or creed or a line of descent. It's the question of principles, idealism, and character."
Teddy Roosevelt did believe this, but he also championed an immigration policy much more in line with the current conservative position than with the Obama White House. Biden asserted that based on TR's "standard, 11 million undocumented persons are already Americans, in my view."
This was such a gross distortion of the record that it went well beyond the Vice President's well-known gift for gaffes. It was a blatant attempt to mislead the public by claiming a false endorsement.
For Teddy Roosevelt, not all immigrants were the same; they did not all have the attributes cited in the quote misused by Biden. As he said in his annual message to Congress as President in 1905, "We cannot have too much immigration of the right sort and we should have none whatsoever of the wrong sort....The prime need is to keep out all immigrants who will not make good citizens. The laws now existing for the exclusion of undesirable immigrants should be strengthened, Adequate means should be adopted, enforced by sufficient penalties, to compel steamship companies engaged in the passenger business to observe in good faith the law which forbids them to encourage or solicit immigration to the United States."
His views did not change over the course of his career. As early as 1888, he said in a speech in New York City, "I wish Congress would revise our laws about immigration. Paupers and assisted immigrants of all kinds should be kept out; so should every variety of Anarchists....We must soon try to prevent too many laborers coming here and underselling our own workmen in the labor market; a good round head tax on each immigrant, together with a rigid examination into his character would work well."
As President, he restated these principles in his 1901 annual message to Congress, "All persons should be excluded who are below a certain standard of economic fitness to enter our industrial field as competitors with American labor. There should be proper proof of personal capacity to earn an American living and enough money to ensure a decent start under American conditions. This would stop the influx of cheap labor."
He did not share the desire of liberals (and many business leaders) to import poverty and breed a new proletariat. In the same speech, he continued to urge that "we should aim to exclude absolutely not only all persons who are known to be believers in anarchist principles or members of anarchist societies; but also all persons who are of a low moral tendency or of unsavory reputation." TR thus opposed policies that would undermine living standards or support radicalism.
Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would do both. An analysis of the 2010-2011 Current Population Survey (a joint product of the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) by the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies found that 57% of illegals live in or near poverty levels and 47% made use of major welfare programs. Cheap labor is a misnomer. Business firms may pay low wages to illegals, but the rest of society makes up for that with subsidies via the welfare state. Even with public assistance, illegals do not "earn an American living." The result is the expansion of slums and high crime areas. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that 10% of murderers, 31% drug traffickers, 34% of money launderers, 64% of kidnappers, and 28% of food and drug offenders sentenced in 2012 were non-citizens.
The most recent (2011) National Gang Threat Assessment from the FBI reported that nine of the thirteen largest criminal street gangs in the country were based on foreign origins: Mexico, El Salvador, Somalia and the Dominican Republic. Of particular concern was that, "Mexican drug cartel activity has fueled crime in the porous US Southwest Border region, where easy access to weapons, a high demand for drugs, ample opportunity for law enforcement corruption, and a large Hispanic population ripe for recruitment and exploitation exists."
Teddy Roosevelt understood that America's greatest achievement has been to turn the working class into the middle class. The United States has vanquished the "proletariat" which was to provide the muscle for a socialist uprising. It is the Left that is trying desperately to recreate a poor and alienated political base that would support radicalism. For the Left, importing a revolution looks expedient; exactly one of the threats TR warned about.
The venue at which Biden spoke would have bothered TR. The group's name was an act of self-segregation based on race and foreign origins. Teddy Roosevelt despised what he called "hyphenated Americans." He wrote in 1894, "We welcome the German and the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans or Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans....We have no room in any healthy American community for a German-American vote or an Irish-American vote, and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote." Today, it is the Hispanic vote that overshadows any discussion of what immigration policy is best for the country as a whole.
Assimilation is vital. "America is a Nation, not a mosaic of nationalities. The various nationalities that come here are not to remain separate, but to blend into the one American nationality," Roosevelt wrote in a 1918 newspaper column. He continued, "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country....English should be the only language taught and used in the primary schools. We should provide by law so that after a reasonable interval every newspaper in this country should be published in English." The proliferation of foreign language media today would alarm TR.
Once vetted and assimilated, Roosevelt believed "every immigrant should be treated as a future fellow citizen and not merely a labor unit." The policy and process of immigration was, however, to always be a matter of law and national interest. There was no place in Theodore Roosevelt's approach for illegal immigration. As he said on the campaign trail in 1900, "No nation ever yet retained its freedom for any length of time after losing its respect for the law, after losing the law abiding spirit, the spirit that really makes for orderly liberty." The legendary Rough Rider would have put his full strength into defeating what Biden and Obama are proposing.
Tolerant Feminists Tell Conservative Young Woman: We Don't Want You Here
Campus Reform is a conservative outlet that keeps tabs on liberal university indoctrination and hypocrisy. Recently Campus Reform's Katherine Timpf, who considers herself a libertarian, attended the "inclusive" National Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Crystal City, Virginia to ask young women questions about what feminism means to them.
Not surprisingly, the liberal women at the conference weren't happy about Timpf being in attendance. She was discriminated against based on her place of employment, attacked for her assumed political views and was told "you guys aren't wanted here." Organizers of the event are seen repeatedly seen saying, "Campus Reform is a conservative outlet, just to warn you if you're going to talk to them."
“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.
“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.
“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.
“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.
“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.
“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.
“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”
Nigel Farage: Britain's politically incorrect man
Watching that “I Love Nigel Farage” documentary on Channel 4 last night, I was struck by the frequent, ironic juxtaposition of “No Smoking” signs and our Jurassic hero. While the entire world has embraced clinical hygiene of both the body (no fags, no booze) and mind (political correctness), Farage carries on as if the 1970s never ended. At one point, he took the interviewer for a lunch that snowballed from a pint of beer to a bottle of wine to two large glasses of port. By the time he’d lit up a Rothmans in his EU parliamentary office, this viewer was in seventh heaven. What actor around today could convince in the lead role of the movie of Farage’s life? Alas, Sid James is no longer with us.
Which brings us to Putingate, the latest Nigel-fluff that the Westminster elite is convinced will sink him. Right to the bottom of the ocean. Farage’s sin was to say that he admires Putin as a political leader, although not as a human being. Why this is controversial, I have literally no idea. Farage made it abundantly clear that he regards the Russian leader as a despot (“How many journalists in jail now?”); he simply thinks that he outwitted Obama on Syria. I think that; you think that; even Obama probably thinks that. Perhaps there is more to challenge in Farage’s view that the Ukrainian crisis was caused by the EU's attempt to expand eastwards – but even on this point he has a point. Ukraine found itself in the middle of a bidding war between the EU and Russia, and Russia – through means fair and foul – won. This prompted the revolution, the downfall of Yanukovych and the attempted secession of Crimea. So the EU is somewhat to blame. Ah, but you can’t say such things out loud because the consensus in Westminster right now is that Putin is Hitler, Ukraine is the Sudetenland and anything less that outright Russophobia is treachery. And probably a little bit homophobic.
And that’s Farage’s real sin: he dares to be different. Contemporary British politics works by an unusual degree of consensus. All three party leaders want to stay in the EU, all wish to preserve the principle of the welfare state, all back gay marriage, all accept the need to go green, none will challenge the concept of open borders on immigration. Some or all of these positions may well be right – that’s not the issue. The issue is that this homogeneity of opinion is fundamentally undemocratic. In democracies, voters are supposed to be offered real choices rather than one establishment philosophy spun three different ways. To make matters worse, the party leaders now not only sound alike but also look alike. Janet Daley wrote a powerful column for this paper over the weekend in which she noted,
I can’t recall any time in the last half century of British politics when not a single leader of a major party had what seemed like a true connection with ordinary people. Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, Neil Kinnock, even Tony Blair in his Islington middle-class way: there has always been at least one official party voice that reached into real life.
The only man who does seem real at the moment is Nigel Farage. Of course, there’s an argument that we don’t really want "real" in our politicians – that the only reason why we find Nigel amusing or even exciting is that we don’t think he stands a chance of entering Number 10. If Ukip were to win seats in 2015, the public would start to hold the party to the same standards that it holds the other three. In which case, gay floods and Bongo Bongo Land gags might become serious vote losers. As they should be.
But until that point, Westminster is going to continue hitting its head against the brick wall of public antipathy towards politics-as-usual. The more that Farage acts up, the more different he seems, the more the establishment will hate him, the more the voters will like him. From a US history perspective, there was a very similar dynamic at work in the campaigns of Republican Pat Buchanan – a conservative who the mainstream regarded as socially unacceptable, even borderline fascist – yet who enjoyed a significant constituency of support that saw him as funny, honest and vote worthy. He, incidentally, admires Putin, too. "It's a small world among the small minded", the establishment might say…
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.