Plans.

Doug Says That EU Leaders Know That Cameron Is Bluffing!

There is, David Cameron told us, an "urgency and frankness about how the European Union must change". Reform, he said in his famous Bloomberg speech, needs to be "fundamental and far-reaching". And, he went on to say: "I believe the best way to do this will be in a new Treaty".

ADVERTISING

How long ago those words, spoken little more than two years ago, now seem.Now we know that there will be no treaty changes. All that talk at Bloomberg were just that. Talk.

Yet Britain's relationship with the EU is defined by treaties, not talk. Not even the most earnest, well crafted prime ministerial speeches matter one jot if they do not translate into treaty change.

You would not buy a new home on the basis of spoken promises from an estate agent. You would do so on the basis of what was written in the deeds. Why should any one buy into prime ministerial promises of a new deal with the EU when there will be no treaty change?

How, one wonders, did Downing Street get into such a mess?

Because, to be blunt, the rest of Europe knows that Mr Cameron is bluffing. The Prime Minister wants to keep Britain in the EU, and is willing to do so at almost any price.

That means that for Frau Merkel and co there is no need to budge. The Prime Minister's negotiating team are reduced to asking for a few white rabbits, which the Prime Minister can theatrically conjure up at the last minute to make it look like he has got something.

Imagine the scene around the conference table in Berlin or Brussels.

Merkel and the rest of you are fretting about more Greece bail outs. The entire monetary union project is starting to look like catastrophe. A quarter of a million migrants look set to make it across the Mediterranean.

Then in blusters David Cameron, certain of his own charm. He tells you he wants change, yet you know he will lead the campaign in his own country to accept whatever terms you offer him. Why would you offer him much?

You would nod politely. Smile. Then move on to deal with the next crisis undermining your grand Europe project.

This, tragically, is the sort of shoddy statecraft that leaves the mayor of Calais laying down terms to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. We ought to be doing so much better that this.

Sad But Accurate.

Democracy Deficit: House Of Lords Scandal.

AGAIN - WHERE ARE ALL THE UKIP PEERS?????

'cept For Komodo Dragons, Of Course.

If True - This Is RANK Dishonesty.

PM 'to scare us into voting to stay in Europe' as leak lays out 'Project Fear' tactics

Leaked details of the Prime Minister's talks with other EU leaders reveal he has set himself the 'firm aim' of keeping the UK in the EU, in a move likely to infuriate Eurosceptics. Mail. Remember the PM who has repeatedly told us that 'if the EU does not give us a fair deal then, we shall quit?' Well ... surprise, surprise - after multiple rejections from EU heads of state ...

Orwell Would Have Approved.

Moral Relativism.

BY MICHAEL BROWN , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

• 
  Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/homepage11/enlarge4.png

For the last few decades, our culture has warmly embraced moral relativism, where right and wrong are determined based on our feelings, and so there is nothing absolute. Morality is entirely relative, which means that you can have your morality and I can have mine.

Today, we have moved from moral relativism to reality relativism, where not only morality but everything is determined by how I feel, so you can have your reality and I can have mine.

This is not a matter of a dangerous descent down a slippery slope. This is a matter of falling off the cliff entirely.

Call it reality free-fall – or perhaps, reality free-for-all, since anything goes these days.

The effects of moral relativism are obvious.

Abortion may be wrong for you, but not for me.

Living together out of wedlock may be wrong for you, but not for me.

Name the sinful behavior, whatever it is – as long as it allegedly doesn't hurt anyone, which also becomes a relative concept – and who are you to judge? From porn to drugs to adultery to stealing, we can find justification for our actions.

In the words of Scripture, "All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the spirit" (Proverbs 16:2).

When I was shooting heroin (1970-71) I began to hang out with junkies, and they were a very different breed than my hippie friends. (Some of the hippies wouldn't do chemically-based drugs, since that was not "natural," which is yet another aspect of moral relativism, but that's another story.)

One junkie was telling me about a friend of his who was so morally bankrupt that he would steal money from his own grandmother.

I said to him, "But didn't you tell me you stole money from your own mother?"

He replied, "Yes, I did, but I would never steal money from my grandmother!" (To my shame, I had stolen money from my own father.)

This confirms what Ravi Zacharias observed, namely, "With no fact as a referent, what is normative is purely a matter of preference."

Well, we have taken that concept one step further today: "With no fact as a referent, what is real is purely a matter of perception."

Who's to say Bruce Jenner isn't a woman. (As someone tweeted me today, "Her name is Caitlin.")

Who's to say Rachel Dolezal isn't black?

Who's to say that people suffering from species dysphoria are not actually part animal? (A technical description of this disorder is "the sense of being in the wrong [species] body... a desire to be an animal.")

Who are you to judge?

Why must people be confined by the "gender binary" of male-female? Why, for that matter, must they be confined by the confining boundaries of skin color, ethnicity, or even humanity?

Why not transcend humanity and simply be who you really are, which means, whoever you imagine yourself to be?

I recently had a conversation with a very sweet, non-religious lesbian caller to my radio show. She insisted that gender dysphoria (meaning, transgender identity) was different than species dysphoria, just as others have told me that gender dysphoria was different than Body Identity Integrity Disorder (sometimes called "amputee identity disorder," or, more recently, being "transabled"), and still others have argued strongly that being transgender is different than being "transracial."

Yet all the arguments are based on perception vs. reality (with the exception of those who are born with biological or genetic abnormalities), and we are simply told that Bruce Jenner really is a woman (after all, transgender is the "t" of the LGBT movement) whereas Rachel Dolezal really isn't black. Based on what objective criteria? None.

I'm convinced that the LGBT war on gender will undermine itself, being part of the larger war on reality, and that soon enough, sanity will prevail in our society.

That being said, this is an issue I would gladly drop for now if not for the fact that it continues to shout at us day and night, calling for a response, the latest example being the outrageous interview with Rachel Dolezal on NBC's Nightly News.

I was so grieved by her comments during the interview that I prepared a special video response, which you can watch here.

R. C. Sproul once wrote, "I do not want to drive across a bridge designed by an engineer who believed the numbers in structural stress models are relative truths."

In the same way, there's not much hope for a world in which all reality becomes relative, but when we cut ourselves off from the one true God, the ultimate source of reality, we really do lose our bearings.

A return to divine truth – to reality – will deliver us from our delusions.

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He is the author of 25 books, including Can You Be Gay and Christian, and he hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/from-moral-relativism-to-reality-relativism-140613/#rWHuXQkxjS03R0rj.99

Queen's Birthday Honours Analysed:

In his blog, Archbishop Cranmer points out that just one of the Queen’s Birthday Honours recognised services to religious freedom, whilst 19 citations mentioned equality or diversity. The man who was honoured, Bishop Anba Angaelos,speaks up courageously for persecuted Christians across the globe and powerfully into our situation here in the United Kingdom. Read more from Bishop Angaelos on the state of religious freedom around the world.

DINO FIBRES AND BLOOD CELLS. Really?

DINO FIBRES AND BLOOD CELLS found, according to reports in Science (AAAS) news, BBC News 9 June 2015, ABC News 10 June 2015, and Nature Communication doi:10.1038/ncomms8352. A group of scientists led by materials scientist Sergio Bertazzo and palaeontologist Susannah Maidment, of Imperial College London, have examined specimens of dinosaur bone from the collection in the Natural History Museum London and have found what appear to be protein fibres and red blood cells. The researchers used a focused ion beam to cut into the specimens, giving them a pristine surface to examine with an electron microscope and take samples for chemical analysis using a mass spectrometer. The microscopic study revealed fibres that look like collagen, a tough fibrous protein found in bone, tendons, joint capsules and other connective tissues. The researchers also found oval structures that looked like red blood cells. The mass spectrometer analysis of the fibres showed up amino acid fragments, consistent with those found in collagen. Analysis of the cell-like objects was similar to that of blood. This is not the first time remains of fibres and
blood cells have been found in dinosaur bones, but the previous finds were in exceptionally well preserved specimens. According to Susannah Maidment, the Natural History Museum specimens were “very scrappy, individual broken bones” that were not particularly well preserved. She went on to say: “If you’re finding soft tissues in these kinds of fossils, maybe this kind of preservation might be more common than we realised, and might even be the norm”. The bones are estimated as being 75 million years old, and have been in the museum collection for over a hundred years. The research team concluded: “Using advanced material characterization approaches, we find that these putative biological structures can be well preserved over geological timescales, and their preservation is more common than
previously thought. The preservation of protein over geological timescales offers the opportunity to investigate relationships, physiology and behaviour of long extinct animals”.

Links: BBC, Science, Science Daily. Evidence News 10/15 – 24th June 2015
ED. COM. Let’s be honest! The reason blood cells and protein fibres have not been found in dinosaur bones until recently is because no-one bothered to look for them, and the reason is simple. All present day observations show that proteins and cells break down in a lot less time than one million years, let alone the 75 million years these specimens are believed to be. However, now that they have been found,
evolutionary scientists are faced with a problem: Do they admit the presence of cells and proteins is evidence that these bones are not that old? Sadly, as the statement from these researchers indicates, scientists would rather believe by faith in some unknown mechanism that goes against our all known observations of how dead cells and proteins decay in order to prop up their belief, also held by faith, in millions of years. (Ref. dinosaurs, biochemistry, chemistry, ages)

Unsustainable!

Strange How THIS Blog Has Stated THIS Simple Fact All Along.

David Cameron left the EU summit empty-handed and now accepts that changing treaties before the referendum may NOT be possible.

Phew. Never saw that one coming!

Asylum - The All New Board Game!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3139693/LITTLEJOHN-Border-controls-think-kidding.html

A Fortnight Ago I Rang For 64 Minutes Before My Call Was Answered.

Taxman refuses to take our calls: One in four who ring HMRC don't get through as 18million calls go unanswered 

HMRC failed to answer 18million phone calls from the public last year, with a staggering 10.5million going to answer machine and a further 7.4million terminated by frustrated customers who hung up. Mail.

Same Excuses In The UK At Christmas.

Leeds: Surely The Worst Place To Drive In The UK.

I am a safe driver - even a very safe one - right up unto the point I am following signs in a city centre. I went to Headingley on Wednesday and was shocked at how signposts frequently told you your direction - then disappeared never to be seen again. Nightmare! If you say there is anywhere worse than Leeds for this - I shan't believe you.

1,000 Days For Saeed Abedini.

Pastor Saeed Abedini's Iran Imprisonment Reaches Day 1,000; Groups to Display 1,000 Flowers at US Capitol to Reflect on the Millions of Persecuted Christians

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV

Tuesday marks the 1,000 day pastor Saeed Abedini will spend in an Iranian prison for his faith, an occasion that several faith groups will mark by displaying 1,000 flowers before the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. Christian News.

Our New Waterloo.

The EU Referendum is our Waterloo. Published Jun 19, 2015. UKIP Leader Nigel Farage writing for Breitbart London on the occasion of the bi-centenary of the Battle of Waterloo: "What happened at Waterloo was that Britain and her allies overcame the maniac who wanted to build a United States of Europe. When I think of the British Guards with their Dutch colleagues in the hell of Hougoumont, outnumbered, and being battered by heavy artillery, I realise that the upcoming referendum is our Hougoumont."

EU Lies - NAILED!

UKIP Trade Spokesman William Dartmouth 

and UKIP Leader Nigel Farage debunk '5 EU Lies' 

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP and UKIP

 International Trade Spokesman William
 Dartmouth launched "The Truth About 
Trade Beyond The EU" in Westminster 
today, outlining five key 'EU Myths' widely 
used by pro-EU campaigners.

Supported by fully quantified and researched 
evidence, UKIP rebuts five common falsehoods 
 that have come to characterise the debate 
about the UK's relationship with the EU and 
instead demonstrate the positive realities of 'Brexit'

These are:
1. Needing to be in the EU to access the Single Market
2. Needing to be a member of the EU to export successfully
3. Leaving the EU would isolate the UK
4. A UK-EU trade agreement would require the free 
movement of people
5. A country cannot negotiate trade agreements 
without being part of a large trading bloc.

William Dartmouth MEP said: "I am glad to have 
been able to draw together this research which 
I hope will be a useful contribution to the ongoing 
debate about the UK's place in the world.

"Too often the debate surrounding trade is clouded 
by misinformation and myths about leaving the EU 
when the simple truth is that as a sovereign nation 
we we would be able to negotiate and maintain our 
own lucrative trade agreements, and could continue 
to trade with EU member states but this time, acting 
in our own best interests."

Still Powerful Words In French.

McNarry Talks Sense.

McNarry seeks clarification regarding new counter terrorist legislation.

Posted on June 18

David McNarry MLA, UKIP Leader in Northern Ireland has revealed that he has written to both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary asking them to include dissident Irish republican organisations in the provisions of the new counter-terrorism bill promised in the recent Queen’s speech. Mr McNarry said:

“I asked the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to include Irish Republican organisations, particularly republican dissident organisations, in the list of extreme groups to be targeted. I explained that the dissident threat was a major problem in this part of the United Kingdom, and is already a major pressure on police resources here.

I reminded them that it was equally a problem on the mainland. The logic of including these groups on such a list seemed to me to be beyond question considering the level of threat they pose to our free and democratic society.”

That Edge of The Wedge ...

Plans to stifle Christian freedoms in schools.

The requirement for schools to have an act of collective worship should be abolished, says a report co-authored by former Education Secretary Charles Clarke. The report entitled “A new settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools” backs a number of policies endorsed by the British Humanist Association. The far-reaching secular proposals would stifle Christian freedoms, scrap the law requiring Christian assemblies, prevent schools from providing any religious instruction and more.  Christian Concern.