#sadiqkhan

Pro-Trump crowds in London?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4kjp8irRw&feature=youtu.be

CM was asked to provide proof that there were more than a few people supporting Trump on his visit to London. Naturally the mainstream media just covered the angry mobs and the baby balloon.

Of course many pro-Trumpers prefer to drink, not wear milkshakes. Or as BBC comedian Jo Brand suggested to people of his ilk (i.e. Nigel Farage) that battery acid should be thrown instead. Great joke in a city where acid attacks are almost a twice a daily occurrence.

Queen trumps Khan on British values

Wow! There was Sadiq Khan blathering on video about feminism and how Trump doesn’t share the values of Londoners or Brits to then have the Queen authorize this tweet, taken from her speech!

Mr President, as we look to the future, I am confident that our common values and shared interests will continue to unite us.

As CM has been saying all along, the Queen knows what 80 years of friendship means and maintaining a relationship with those that protected her monarchy does not stop because activists lose their minds.

By the way The Royal Family has 3.9 million followers on Twitter suggesting 4x more people follow the Queen than Khan.

Hypocritical Sadiq Khan embraces feminism

Sadiq Khan and feminism. What a laugh. His latest “Elle” sponsored video speaks volumes about his double standards. Since when did  we turn to Elle and Vogue for in-depth political analysis?  The mainstream media has left a void but to think fashion mags have filled the void! Does Khan honestly think that any American voter gives a damn what he thinks about domestic policy? One could be mistaken for thinking he has been watching Gillette commercials on a loop. What a surprise his video has received a 3:1 dislike rating on YouTube.

Did he not see the irony of fawning over a Pakistani political delegation to London at the time Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi was facing execution for blasphemy? Did he fight for the rights of women or Christians or diversity? Did he challenge the visitors? Not a peep.

Why was he silent when prominent Iranian human rights lawyer and women’s rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh was given 33 years in prison and 148 lashes? She was only fighting for the rights for these women not to wear the hijab. Sadiq uttered not one word.

Where was his defence of comedian, John Cleese, for saying he doesn’t like cultures that believe in female genital mutilation? Yep, you guessed it.Nowhere.

Yet he feels vindicated to make a video about Trump’s views (shared by many Americans) on abortion, which is much more about late term than anything else. Don’t be surprised if pro-life people are disgusted that NY Mayor de Blasio happily lit up monuments and buildings to celebrate terminations right up to point of delivery.

Maybe Mayor Khan is upset with states like Georgia which want heartbeat bills when it comes to abortion. People could still go to another state that practices late term abortion to have the procedure? Did he think of that?

What about the rights of females in the womb who in certain countries get terminated, not because of medical emergencies but the cultural preference to have males? Are you for that?

Let’s look at the stats on abortion because CM guarantees Khan hasn’t a clue even though he professes wokeness.

Let’s look at the stats.

c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990. Hardly stats to cheer about. Of course the arguments for a woman’s right to choose will always be thrown at pro-lifers. Yet allowing termination until birth?

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive.

According to the Guttmacher Institute some 56 million abortions occur annually. Every. Single. Year. Think that WWII saw 50 million deaths in 6 years of conflict with wide spread use of lethal weapons. So abortions kill at a far higher rate than global conflict.

Then he follows with a closing comment that “men and boys should be feminists” and discusses the disproven “gender pay gap” myth suggesting if you believe in gender equality then one is a “feminist“. CM believes in equal opportunity but don’t consider it feminist to believe in fairness. Kristina Keneally doesn’t believe in fairness! She’s happy for men to take a hit to progress her career despite her well known shortcomings.

Sorry Mayor, the data doesn’t support your theories and Trump has never once had a policy platform that discusses the gender pay gap because America focuses on equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Maybe you should watch Oprah, the highest paid TV host globally. Maybe then see whether Dr Phil has a right to complain why he is not getting equal pay for equal work?!?

Dictator with term limits

While no one can doubt that Trump polarizes opinion, do his detractors honestly think they will win the debate by mowing a giant phallus into a lawn? Will this attempt to (literally) take the moral low ground somehow swing those who hold different opinions?

If the dictator moniker were true he would be the world’s most incompetent executor of such an office. Sadly Trump has between 1.5 and 5.5 years (likely the latter) to remain as DOTUS. Instead of 99% of the population voting for him like a Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un or Hitler, Trump will likely garner around half. If Americans truly wanted a real dictator they would be better off voting for someone who could get 99%. Sadly democracies don’t operate like that.

The Queen, who long remembers the 80 year relationship which preserved her monarchy, knows that after Trump leaves office, the UK will still continue to have a strong bond with America. Her Majesty won’t resort to petty snubs of its head of state because she feels the need to kowtow to the intolerant mindsets of a few.

Will Americans want to see politicians like Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry show such conditional support for American democracy? Did she call for protests when the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia visited? A man with pretty questionable actions regarding journalists in embassies. No she did not.

There are far more effective ways to show courtesy to visiting dignitaries. As CM mentioned yesterday, Trump’s tweets are unstatesmanlike. It doesn’t make Thornberry or Khan’s any better.

Perhaps the Queen is sending the world a message about “the long game.” She probably knows a thing or two about diplomacy as the world’s longest serving monarch. Her state dinner invitation list is the perfect representation of who she feels needs prioritization. What an embarrassment that the UK government did not extend the invite in the first place.

God save our Queen!

Harsh but true

It is hardly statesmanlike to tweet off insults but there is a horrible truth to what Trump wrote about Khan and de Blasio. London crime has got out of control. CM wrote about it last year. However should we be the least bit surprised Trump slammed him on Twitter? De Blasio was trashed by his own NYPD for his incompetence. So harsh words that carry a lot of truth.

Not to make a two wrongs argument, but Sadiq Khan made some pretty disparaging remarks about POTUS ahead of his visit so he was inviting a bloody nose from a man with a glass jaw. Khan’s comments led Her Majesty to leave him off the official invite list for the Trump state dinner. Clearly she knows the long history of the UK-US relationship is more important than pandering to the whims of a weak,virtue signaling identity politics loving appeaser. Queen Elizabeth has never forgotten the special friendship she grew up with 80 years ago.

Or maybe we should question the utterly childish antics of the Shadow Foreign Minister Emily Thornberry who called for a mass protest against Trump on June 4? It would be understandable if Idi Amin had visited but this is the UK’s strongest ally which has a democratically elected head of state. Yet Thornberry railed at Trump as if the UK was in a state of war with America. Only proves how unfit Labour is to govern.

When will the left realize they only do his bidding when they let Trump Derangement Syndrome consume them?

Take on a child by acting like one too

4CB52B2B-9BC7-4865-99F4-FF5EC6AAA141.jpeg

Just another stunt that will dreadfully backfire and all but guarantee a 2018 mid-term red wave and 2020 re-election. Even if many believe that he deserves litttle or no respect, do sensible people honestly think treating a foreign leader with such disdain helps in trying to correct behaviours or win over his fans? Have they thought it may alienate more centrist liberals who don’t want to be associated with this type of childish stuff?

It stinks of the spreadsheet that came out ahead of the Brexit referendum which listed leave supporters as Putin, Trump, BoJo, Farage etc  as a way to disparage them while listing Remain with Obama, EU leaders, 300 leading economists, the President of Australia (we don’t have one!) and the National Union of Students. It was in every sense of the word to belittle would be Leave voters by trying to ridicule their intelligence. Look what happened. Poke fingers, call voters bigots limit reasoned debate then watch the voting booth deliver the exact opposite of that intended.

Yes one can argue it is freedom of speech and expression. Yet they’re handing him even more free media coverage which only helps his cause and highlights the double standards. Trying to get the “baby” out of office won’t happen if they dumb down to his level at every possible occasion.

Overthrow the Monarchy? What would the left do without it?

52000C3D-E1D1-4EBC-ADCA-149651BC8069.jpeg

Kenan Malik of The Observer wrote of the need to ditch the monarchy. His view was that adding skin colour to the mix won’t change the overall desire to throw it in the dustbin of history. He said,

Nor can I work out why adding a few more black dukes and duchesses, or even kings and queens, should be a step forward. Equality does not mean making inherited privilege more “diverse”. It requires us to get rid of the whole shebang. Adding a splash of colour to a feudal relic is not my idea of social progress.

So typical is the envy of the left that they want to strip everything from the Royal Family and make them all commoners. Why not turn Buckingham Palace into a soup kitchen and boarding house? Put Queen Elizabeth into a waiting list for public housing. Ignore that Prince Harry and others in the Royal family have served their country in the armed forces. Harry put his life on the line in defence of his country. It is a wonder whether Malik has served his country with as much distinction. What fine men the princes have become despite the tragic loss of their mother.

However we should examine the hypocrisy of the left to overthrow the monarchy. BBC, the socialist biased state broadcaster rejected its charter and couldn’t help itself throw President Trump under the bus in terms of comparing crowd numbers at the Inauguration versus Harry & Meghan’s wedding. Three things;

1) were it not for the overwhelming popularity (18mn watched it in the UK alone and 100s millions worldwide) of the Royals then the BBC couldn’t have an opportunity to bash the President in this way;

2) for the Queen to accept a divorcee into the household to marry her grandson shows how ‘progressive’ Her Majesty is. Good luck getting the Japanese Imperial Household Agency accepting something like this. The left should praise her open mind not censure her for being an out of touch bigoted granny and;

3) the wedding was all about diversity which the left loves so much. The 14 minute self-indulgent hijack (sorry, sermon) from a black bishop to a black cellist to a black choir. The music was indeed delightful. Harry even drove away in a ‘save the environment’ electric Jaguar E-type although one could argue that an original petrol version might not have started.

Malik should study the 2015 survey by Yougov which found 68% of the British public believe the monarchy to be good for the country and 71% think it should remain in place. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292m. Brand Finance Research believes the monarchy tips in around £1.8bn per annum to the UK economy. That is to say they more than pull their weight.

He shouldn’t envy the Royals but pity them. Think of what the Queen has sacrificed in the 66 years she has ruled. Sure the accommodations at Buckingham and Windsor Castles are comfortable, not to mention the numerous butlers and servants who make life easier but think of what she has had to give up in terms of privacy to serve her country. Think of the paparazzi who hounded Diana to her death over 20 years ago. The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be increasingly scrutinized by the media. The mainstream media would die without the monarchy.

Yet Malik drones on about his real hidden agenda suggesting, “As for the belief that Meghan will break down barriers for black people and make minorities more accepted as truly British, that’s as anachronistic as the monarchy. Faced by an abusive skinhead or by a police officer about to stop and search me, my first thought has never been: “If only there was a black Windsor, then I might be accepted more.”

How in the name of all that is holy that he can talk of how poorly minorities are treated by the British police in 2018? Perhaps he should look at the shameful cover-ups over ‘Asian rape gangs’ by the police over decades to show how the complete opposite is true. Or answer why two ‘white’ fathers were arrested by the police for trying to rescue their underage daughters from rape dens? They were charged with illegal entry and disturbing the peace. Or the arrest and deportation of EU citizen Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone looking to make a speech at Speaker’s Corner and conduct an interview?

Society may be far from perfect but to run these identity narratives using the monarchy as a beacon of bigotry serves no purpose when the facts are examined. Perhaps he should take up his victimhood with London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan because voters are so against minorities. No, it’s just easier to imply that white Brits are xenophobes and the monarchy embodies that same white privilege. Until we guillotine the Royals, the sharp remedy that will cure this lack of diversity awaits.

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

Her Majesty knows best Mayor Khan

IMG_9146.JPG

Isn’t it funny how the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has been gazumped by the Queen. Her Majesty has served her country for over 65 years and ruled over 14 Prime Ministers. Let’s just say her understanding of politics, geopolitics, terrorism and the importance of long term relationships has never got in the way of short term pettiness. The Queen values the American relationship knowing it was their partnership that helped Great Britain defeat the Axis powers in WW2. She never forgets the important times when the relationship has truly mattered. Her extension of an invite to President Trump to Buckingham Palace is all about preserving shared values. Khan wants to cancel Trump’s visit because he is offended by his tweets with regards to his softness on terrorism in his city. Is Trump wrong?

Instead of the Mayor facing Trump tete-a-tete and justifying his stance he seeks to do what many leaders in the West do – sulk and seek to alienate the relationship because of their weakness. What Trump has said about Khan has validity. The President isn’t conventional and he doesn’t necessarily deliver in the most courteous manner but where is the counter argument? Piers Morgan was spot on. Instead of Khan blaming Theresa May for Met Police funding cuts, he humiliated the Mayor querying isn’t his biggest responsibility to ensure the safety of Londoners by monitoring the 400 suspects living in his constituency?

Let’s be clear, if the UK was at war for whatever reason you can be guaranteed the majority of the British want America on their side. The Queen knows this and I’m sure Her Majesty can bring Trump to mutually beneficial discussions rather than exchange pleasantries over tea. All this nonsense about banning Trump and distancing the UK from the US shows the typical “conditional” attitudes our society seems increasingly willing to tolerate. Khan is in that camp.

Let’s be clear. Trump’s America first isn’t all about pure isolationism. A large part is about making sure other nations don’t ride their overwhelming generosity on things like NATO, UN or the Paris Climate Accord. Many presidents to date have happily allowed the country to be gouged on the international stage but now the budget and deficits don’t support endless freebies for other nation states.

Perhaps Mayor Khan should learn from the current monarch about true values rather than  grizzle about his hurt pride. She maybe in her 90s but she is still sharp as a tack.