Monday, February 04, 2019

Why Would Anyone Be Surprised?

Pew: People who attend church are happier than those who don't

Those who identify with a religious group and regularly attend worship services tend to be happier and more civically engaged than those who do not, a new Pew Research Center survey has found. CP.

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Hapless England Lose Test in Antigua - and The Series .

Currently, the 8th best test team in the world gave England a lesson - but there wasn't all that much in it:-
The Windies were superior with the bat.
The Windies were superior with the ball.
The Windies were superior with catching.
The Windies were superior in the field.
The Windies were superior in the use of reviews.
The Windies were superior in negotiating a very difficult pitch when bowling.
The Windies were superior in negotiating a very difficult pitch when batting.
The Windies were superior in the captaincy stakes.
The Windies were superior in attitude.
The Windies were superior in terms of professionalism.

But apart from that ... England did have a measure of bad luck!

Guardian. So Biased - Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way of A Good Story!

Jonathan Arnott MEP Retweeted Guardian news
Given that nowhere near one-third of British businesses trade outside the European Union, the Guardian headline is literally impossible. If only we had a word for false reports by media organisations...
Jonathan Arnott MEP added,

The Ten Minute Hate.

On Wednesday, MEPs held a Two Minutes Hate against Britain. It wasn’t called that, obviously. Its official title was “The UK’s Withdrawal from the EU (debate)”. But it resembled the “hideous ecstasy of vindictiveness” described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four far more than it resembled a parliamentary debate.
Journalists focused on the relatively restrained assertions by Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker and the other bigwigs that the backstop was non-negotiable and Britain should do as it was told. But the rank-and-file MEPs who spoke afterwards felt less need to be diplomatic. Guy Verhofstadt, the Liberal leader, warned us, “you gonna pay the price!” Dan Hannan MEP. Telegraph.

Birdies.


Free Speech To Be Tried Out In Universities?

New Government guidance aimed at protecting free speech at universities

Staff writer Sat 2 Feb 2019 13:47 GMT Express.
(Photo: Unsplash/Sidharth Bhatia)An aerial view of the University of Oxford
New guidance has been published by the Government to protect lawful free speech at British universities.
The Government said the new guidance would ensure university campuses remain a 'forum for open and robust enquiry' while offering additional clarity around the 'contentious issue of hate speech'.
The introduction of the guidance, produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, comes at a time when some students and academics have raised concerns about censorship around issues like abortion and gender identity.
The guidance gives as an example a student union considering whether to invite a writer to debate gender equality who it later discovers has shared on social media that they believe transgender women are still men. According to the guidance, if the student union wanted to 'no-platform' the writer on the grounds of transphobic hate speech, it would be within its rights to do so but would not be able to prevent other students from inviting the same writer to speak.
The guidance states: 
"An SU considers inviting a writer to debate gender equality. It has a policy of not inviting speakers who use what it calls 'hate speech'. During planning, they find out that the writer has spoken on social media about their belief that women with a Gender Recognition Certificate are still men. The SU official organising the debate decides that the writer's views amount to transphobic hate speech, and announces on Twitter that they have decided not to invite the writer. The writer complains that the SU's decision to 'no-platform' them violates their right to freedom of expression. The writer has not yet been invited to speak, and, as there is no legal duty on the SU to invite them, there is no infringement of the writer's freedom of speech. However, if an affiliated society or other students invited the same speaker to talk, the SU could not prevent them from doing so as the speaker's views are lawful. This would engage the HEP's s.43 duty to protect free speech, informed by the Article 10 rights of the students and speaker to give and receive ideas."
Announcing the guidance, universities minister Chris Skidmore said it provided a clear framework for universities and student unions to work within hate speech laws and 'Prevent' - the Government's anti-radicalisation scheme requiring that they protect staff and students from extremism.
'Free speech is a value integral to the independence and innovation that embodies the higher education sector in the UK, fuelling academic thought and challenging injustice. This guidance is a symbol of the commitment from across the sector to protecting freedom of speech,' said Mr Skidmore.
Dr David Llewellyn, Chair of GuildHE and Vice Chancellor of Harper Adams University, welcomed the guidance while saying it was important that students be taught how to critically analyse different perspectives.
'Higher education institutions are champions of free speech, places where ideas and views - even those that some might find offensive - can be rigorously discussed and challenged. Our staff, and others contributing to our educational and research activities, must be able to freely consider contentious issues,' he said.
'We also have to be able to work with students to develop their ability to critically analyse what is being said, weigh up different arguments and contribute to the debate.
'That is why we welcome this new guidance, which will provide greater clarity on the rights and obligations for freedom of expression, particularly in areas such as the balance between our commitment to free speech and legislation to prevent radicalisation.'
Alex Proudfoot, Chief Executive of Independent Higher Education said: 'Free speech is an essential ingredient of our sector and our civil society, but the average independent university bears little resemblance to the hyped-up image of higher education as a battleground for identity politics.'

He Shall Reign.

Corbyn Slammed - And Rightly!

Brendan Cox, widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, questioned Jeremy Corbyn´s views on Venezuela (John Stillwell/PA)
Brendan Cox, widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, has slammed Jeremy Corbyn for saying that sanctions on Venezuela were wrong as President Nicolas Maduro refuses to hold elections. Mail.

Saturday, February 02, 2019

THIRTY FOUR Years To Begin The Fight Against FGM!

Family Law Week

Mother first to be convicted of FGM

First prosecution in England for failing to protect a person from FGM
The mother of a young girl has become the first person to be convicted of female genital mutilation offences in England and Wales. She was found guilty of committing FGM in August 2017 when her daughter was three years old. The mother was born in Uganda has lived in the UK for a number of years. FGM is banned in both countries.

The mother (37) and father (43) were both charged with:
  • Count 1: Female Genital Mutilation, contrary to section 1(1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Both defendants on 28 August 2017 excised, or otherwise mutilated, the whole or any part of the labia minora or clitoris of the complainant.
  • Count 2: Failing to protect a girl from the risk of genital mutilation, contrary to Section 3a of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Both defendants on 28 August 2017 had parental responsibility for the complainant, a girl under the age of 16 against whom an offence of female genital mutilation was committed.
The father was acquitted by the jury.

This case was the first time that anyone in England and Wales was charged with failing to protect a person from FGM under section 3a of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

During the procedure at her mother's home in north London, parts of the girl's genitalia were either cut and removed or partially removed.

The defendant claimed her daughter's injuries were caused when she fell from a kitchen counter and onto an open, metal lined cupboard door. None of the medical experts who gave evidence supported that claim. The Old Bailey heard that she was deliberately cut and the injuries amounted to FGM.

Lynette Woodrow from the CPS said:
"Female genital mutilation has an appalling physical and emotional impact on victims that usually lasts their entire life. We can only imagine how much pain this vulnerable young girl suffered and how terrified she was. A three-year-old has no power to resist or fight back. Her mother then coached her to lie to the police so she wouldn't get caught but this ultimately failed.

"We will not hesitate to prosecute those who commit this sickening offence."
During the police investigation it was discovered that the mother had an interest in witchcraft. The investigating officers found a number of spells and curses in her home. These included two cow tongues in her freezer bound in wire with nails and a small knife embedded in them. There were also forty limes and other fruit which, when opened, contained pieces of paper with names on them. The names included those of police officers in the case, CPS staff and social workers. These people were to "shut up" and "freeze their mouths".

The mother kept a diary which contained a prayer to a female deity: "I come before thee today with tears in my eyes, fear in my heart. My mother, I made a choice in my life with that choice I could be going to jail". When interviewed by police she denied practising witchcraft but refused to answer all questions about the items in her freezer.

This is the first time anyone has been convicted of FGM offences since the practice was criminalised in the UK in 1985. For more information about the criminal law and prosecution guidelines in respect of FGM, click here.

Birdie.


Still Voting Trump? - Well - The Alternatives Are Just Too Terrible!

The radical Left has reminded me why I voted for Donald Trump.

The radical Left has reminded me why I voted for Donald Trump

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.
For the last 26 months, I have explained over and again why I, as an evangelical leader, voted for Donald Trump. But in recent days, I have felt the weight of it all over again. There really were strong reasons to vote for Trump, and, given similar circumstances in 2020, I would vote for him again.
To be sure, I regret a lot of the negative fallout that has come with the Trump presidency. Our national divisions have deepened, and it’s not all the media’s fault or the left. The President can be highly divisive, often in ways that are unnecessary and unjustified.
Quite obviously, as an evangelical, I do not back the President’s every word or decision, especially when he waxes ugly and even vulgar. (Please underscore those words “quite obviously.”)
But recent developments have reminded me why we made the choice we did and why it was the right choice to make. The critical nature of the issues at stake leave us few to no voting options.
Consider first some of the potential Democratic presidential candidates for 2020.
As noted on The Hill (speaking to fellow-Democrats), “we are leaning left too far.”
Yes, “For Democrats, one trend that has taken hold is quite alarming: our swing to the far left. That trend has been exemplified by almost all of our putative presidential candidates. The two clearest examples of trying to appeal to our base by being as progressive as possible were the rush to embrace a ‘single-payer health care system after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly endorsed it, and the stampede to call for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”
It is no exaggeration to say that some of the potential Democratic candidates make Hillary Clinton appear moderate.
There is Beto O’Rourke. (In the words of the UK Guardian, “If there was a bold progressive in this election [at least one facing an opponent], O’Rourke was that candidate.”)
There is Kamala Harris. (A Fox News headline quoted Niall Ferguson’s sentiments: “If Democrats Nominate A Far Left Candidate Such As Senators Elizabeth Warren Or Kamala Harris It Improves President Trump’s Chances for Re-Election.”)
There is Pete Buttigieg. (He is the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and if elected, would be the nation’s first gay president.)
Once again, there is Bernie Sanders. (Arguably, he is the single person most responsible for popularizing socialism in America.)
And there is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the Democratic party. Need I say more?
As for the issues that matter most to me – starting with the sanctity of life in the womb, the importance of marriage and family, standing with Israel – each of these candidates would be diametrically opposed to a conservative evangelical position.
If 2020 came down to any of these putative Democrat candidates vs. Trump, it would be a no brainer for me. Trump would get my vote.
And then there is that five-letter word: courts.
Last week, a state judge in Iowa struck down the “fetal heartbeat” bill, which prevents abortions once the baby’s heartbeat can be detected.
As reported by a local news outlet, “Judge Michael Huppert found the law unconstitutional, concluding that the Iowa Supreme Court’s earlier decisions that affirm a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion would include the new law passed last year.”
We desperately need judges who will do away with the myth of “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion” and will instead rule in favor of life.
Against this backdrop, it is critically important that Trump recently renominated 50 judges for federal positions, including two for San Francisco’s notoriously far left 9th Circuit Court. And Trump’s list of 50 is filled with solid conservatives.
In contrast, can you imagine what kind of judges a far-left Democratic president would nominate?
Last July, the New York Times reported that, “Trump Is Putting Indelible Conservative Stamp on Judiciary.”
In September, Reuters stated that, “Trump chips away at liberal U.S. appeals court majorities.”
And he has two more years to go in his present term and, possibly, another four years after that.
In light of the positive transformation of the courts, I will gladly put up with the President’s divisive ways as much as I regret them. Again, the alternative leaves me no choice.
Just last week, the state of New York passed its dreadful abortion law as well as stole the freedom of choice from minors struggling with same-sex attraction or gender confusion. They are now forbidden from receiving professional help to resolve these issues, even with parental backing.
Both of these oppressive rulings need to be challenged in the courts, and we need solid judges to make righteous decisions when issuing their rulings. This cannot be emphasized too strongly.
And for those who think the media would let up if we had a more mild-mannered, Christian-based president like Mike Pence, think again. The left hates Pence every bit as much as it hates Trump, just for different reasons.
In an ideal world, we would have a president who was a shining example of Christlikeness, well-versed in the Scriptures, and serving as the leader of all Americans, from all faiths and backgrounds. And perhaps that day will come, even in our lifetimes.
But right now, as the Democratic party continues to lurch left, as the courts play a bigger and bigger role in our society, and as the secular media exposes its extreme bigotry and bias, I am reminded afresh of why I voted for Trump in 2016.
And that’s why, given similar choices in 2020, I would vote for him again.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fireradio program. His latest book is Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President. Connect with him on Facebookor Twitter.

Build On The Foundation God Has Given You.


Test Match.

I know that luck plays an important part in many sports but during the West Indies innings, England had a shedload of luck. The problem was that all of it was bad. With several catches spilled too, they did themselves few favours. 
Looking at the three wickets earned by Stuart Broad, one of the Sky commentary team said that he deserved to have had 7 or 8. That was the unvarnished truth!
The Windies are now 86 ahead with four wickets intact and once again, England are looking down the barrel of defeat.

Distinguishing Between Left & Right?

The left believes we should not discriminate against moslems and atheists: the right believes that we should not discriminate against Christians and Jews either. Jonathan Arnott MEP.

Friday, February 01, 2019

Second Test In Antigua.

Image result for 2019 test antiguaThe Windies did well to win the toss and put England in on a suspect pitch. Whilst ever the ball remained hard, it came off the surface with occasional wicked bounce.
The England batsmen seemed to encounter every piece of bad luck going - and most could not be blamed for their dismissals.
The good news was that Jonny Bairstow seems to have made the troublesome Number 3 spot his own.
They made a below par but not well below par total of 187.
The Windies openers had all the good luck which had avoided England in their innings and ended the day on a creditable 25 without loss.
It is going to be a real uphill struggle from here.

Learn About Martin Luther For Just £0 - 99.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Martin-Luther-Inspired-Wyatt-North-ebook/dp/B079WCP4PK?_bbid=11449949&tag=bookbubemail-21

Prayer Corner.

Please pray for the family of Al and Lisa also that of Paul and Gillian. To put it simply, both are mightily under the cosh and truly need a touch from our Father in Heaven. Many thanks.

Birdie.


Rees-Mogg in Awesome Form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXTmfRF9THQ

Patience.


Politics In Brazil.

Brazil's far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has used his inaugural speech to promise to build a "society without discrimination or division".
The former army captain told Congress he wanted a "national pact" to free Brazil of corruption, crime and economic mismanagement.
In a swipe at the left, he vowed to free Brazil of "ideology" ...
 ... Mr Bolsonaro, 63, won the presidential election by a wide margin against Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Workers' Party on 28 October.
He was propelled to victory by campaign promises to curb Brazil's rampant corruption and crime.
US President Donald Trump commended him for his speech on Tuesday, saying the US was "with" him. BBC.
When the Beeb proclaims someone as being 'far right' - I have no idea whether to believe them or not. 
Today, 'far-right' is defined as anyone who is one notch to the right of Nick Clegg or who is populist or who is pragmatic or who rejects the pie-in-the-sky notions of the socialist left. I expect that I shall have to adopt a wait-and-see stance.

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Nice One, Poland!

BREXIT BREAKTHROUGH: Poland demands EU give May deal that WILL be supported in Commons

THERESA May’s hopes of a revised Brexit deal were boosted last night when the Polish government urged the EU to prevent Britain quitting the bloc without a deal.

Envy.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFbVe_7Kt4