Seems the Labour Party in the UK was worried the electorate wasn't going to reliably support them so they consciously decided to import voters who would.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

...Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.

The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a “driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural”.

This is another great example of a political class that simply thinks it knows better than the collective judgment of the people. For years critics of the British immigration system (and not BNP nutters) charged this was what was happening but the ruling elite simply declared the conversation out of bounds and either didn't talk about or only long enough to call opponents racists.

Now Labour finds it self in the most unfortunate position of actually having to get the consent of their bitter clingers to stave off defeat in the upcoming general election. Miraculously it is suddenly ok to wonder about the effect of immigration and maybe even tighten up the polices.

As for the American parallel to this, both parties engage in it. Remember Rove was going to cement a Republican realignment with Hispanic voters? How's that working out?

Personally, I don't think immigration is that tough of an issue. Enforce the border and institute a system where immigrants are graded on what they bring in terms of value to the country (skills, money, etc) and then allow them to bring their immediate family (spouse and children) and that's it. Simply being a member of a favored group, be it Irish, Hispanic, Asian or what have you shouldn't matter. America is a wonderfully diverse place as it is, let's focus on diversity of talent for awhile.

Update: A couple of commenters say it's wrong to call the BNP 'nutters' and that they were right all along about Labour's goals.

The BNP may have been right but I was wrong to call them 'nutters'. I should have called a party which only agreed to allow non-white members to join last year and then under threat of court action what it really is...a bunch of racist dirt bags. I apologize for the earlier error.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:27 AM | Comments (345)
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

Bumped by ace. Fresh posts below.

First thing, the title is not my theory, thatÂ’s the thrust of a piece by The AtlanticÂ’s Marc Ambinder.

Second, let me say while I’m not a tremendous fan of Palin, I’m not a hater either. In fact, the more ridiculous attacks I see on her (and yeah I’m look at you Bobby “The Palm” Gibbs), the more interested I become.

With that out of the way, hereÂ’s what I see as the gist of AmbinderÂ’s post.

(Palin is the) only presidential candidate who is able to put the boots to Obama and get away with it. What's she running for? Not the question. What's she running against? Not just Rockefeller Republicanism and the media, or pointy-headed law lecturer presidents, or Katie Couric: she wants to relitigate a bunch of issues that once were settled but now seem to be unraveling. The unrestricted embrace of immigration and the dilution of an American culture. Overweening Greenism. A complicated socially engineered tax code. A much larger role for government (embraced by the president who said that the era of Big Government Was Over and his successor, who was a Republican). The rule of experts. Even the concept of bipartisanship itself.

I guess thatÂ’s what it looks like if sheÂ’s running against you but it seems to escape AmbinderÂ’s grasp that maybe Palin and he supporters arenÂ’t against all he and his friends hold dear but rather are for something else entirely. (In fairness, Ambinder is really a stand in here for a lot of people like David Frum, Democrats and just about anyone who has worked on the editorial staff of the NY Times)

Perspective is a very important thing in life. When you are for one thing and another person is for some completely different, it looks to you like they are against you. Now that might be the functional outcome of their prevailing but it doesn’t mean that their motives were simply opposition to you. It’s quite possible they didn’t know or care about your thoughts or feelings, they simply wanted what they wanted because they preferred it and thought it good in and of itself. Your ‘losing’ was a by-product, not the goal.

The problem is the liberal establishment in this country doesnÂ’t just think their personal preferences are just that, preferences, but rather they see them as natural and correct state of the world. They bemoan the loss of the bi-partisan good old days when for the most part Republicans were fine and decent men like Howard Baker, Gerald Ford and Robert Michel, men who knew their placeÂ…in the minority helping Democrats pass important social programs and tax hikes.

Note how Ambinder couches the ideas of immigration, taxes and big government… “settled”. You see, everything is set in stone the second liberals think they have won. Any desire to impact these changes gets you labeled an extremist, a racist or just a hick. It’s funny but I don’t remember ever agreeing to the idea that ‘the rule of experts’ (or any of the rest) was something we signed off on forever and always. In fact, I don’t recall signing off on it even on a temporary basis. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:45 AM | Comments (397)
Post contains 1341 words, total size 8 kb.

Video report at the link.

And Gallup just found it 45-45, with this warning to Democrats:

The closeness of the two parties over the past several months on this "generic ballot" measure is similar to that found in most Gallup readings from 1994 through 2005 (spanning the period when Republicans won control of the U.S. House and subsequently maintained it for more than a decade).

Closer to elections, Gallup bases its generic-ballot results on voters deemed most likely to vote. Because Republicans are generally more likely than Democrats to turn out to vote, particularly in midterm elections, their positioning improves by several points when the generic ballot is based on likely voters rather than registered voters. Thus, a tie between Democrats and Republicans among registered voters probably corresponds to a Republican lead among likely voters.

And there's an intensity gap, too:

While voter enthusiasm today is fairly high, overall, more than half of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) say they are 'more enthusiastic' about voting, compared with 41% of Democrats/Democratic leaners.

"Historic lows."

Voters have a 50% favorable/46% unfavorable view of the Dem party, its lowest rating in the same poll since '84, when Ronald Reagan won 49 states in a record-breaking landslide. Voters actually have a worse opinion of GOPers -- only 44% view the party favorably, compared with 52% who see them unfavorably. But the GOP has added 8 points to their popularity since the last time the question was asked, in Jun. '09.

First lead for the GOP on the Congressional Ballot question since '02, the article says, when Bush managed an unlikely midterm victory.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

That economist? The Rev. Al Sharpton, of course.

President Obama will discuss jobs and the economy with black leaders tomorrow, including the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Now, I'm lying; he didn't summon Sharpton there, and I doubt he'll even listen all that much. He's trying to firm up support in the black community, which still supports him at 90% levels, but is hurting more than other groups in this recession.

I don't know if this is really a story at all.

But I'll pile on anyway.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Panties bunching over at La Sullivan's I'm sure, though.

Mohamed's lawyers claimed the seven paragraphs prove that the U.S. and British governments were complicit in extracting evidence against him through torture. They have been fighting for access to the documents along with The Associated Press and other news organizations.

The paragraphs posted on the Web site of the British Foreign Office after the court decision say Mohamed was subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," including sleep deprivation, shackling and threats resulting in mental stress and suffering, during interviews by U.S. authorities.

They conclude that the paragraphs given to MI5, "made clear to anyone reading them that BM (Mohamed) was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment."

The charges against Mohamed were later dropped.

That's it, huh? Sleep deprivation, shackling, and threats?

They keep pushing this crap, these lawsuits, this henny-penny chicken-squawking, thinking at some point we're going to give a rat's ass.

We're not. I am not just saying this for effect, and I think this summarizes most people's feelings: I am annoyed that we didn't do more.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Wink-frickin'-wink.

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Well, actually, Jamie Dimon isn't Jewish. But he's Greek. Close enough.

So, why is Obama so cool about huge bonuses for Blankfein and Dimon?

It's hard to say, really.

Dimon is a Democrat and worked in President Obama's town of Chicago, and after Obama took office and JPMorgan Chase repaid its bailout money more quickly than most, he became influential in the White House.[13] Dimon was one of three CEO's found by the Associated Press—along with Lloyd Blankfein and Vikram Pandit—to have had liberal access to United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner in the seven months after the financial crisis in fall 2008.[14]

Blankfein's a Democrat too, though he gave at least $7000 to Hillary. I'm sure he'll spread some "savvy businessman" love to Obama in 2012, too, though.

So, what happened to Populist Obama? Well...

As many of you know, last week it was reported that Wall Street wasn't responding to Democratic fund raising efforts with much enthusiasm. Evidently the Democratic Party's brain trust was unprepared for Wall Street bankers responding to 13 months of public vilification by keeping their checkbooks closed. Go figure. No doubt some DNC drone rushed over to the White House and informed some Administration drone that the money has stopped flowing. Enter, on cue, the Obama walk-back.

Thanks to EdwardR for the Alinsky "make them obey their own rules" angle.

Story: Here's the NYT, via Hot Air, on Democrats' chagrin that Wall Street ain't donating like they used to.

Captain Ed rounds up Obama's populist pap on Wall Street bonuses, if you need a reminder.

Expiration date.

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow... They're removing two words and leaving the rest of the clear implication that Tea Partiers are racist revolutionary trash aligned with murderous racist survivalist-type groups.

A "tea bag" reference in a recent Captain America comic book that has angered the Tea Party movement will be removed by Marvel Comics in future editions, the story's writer told FoxNews.com.

In issue No. 602 of Captain America, "Two Americas, Part One," the title hero and The Falcon, a black superhero from New York City, stumble upon a protest rally in Boise, Idaho. They see scores of protesters carrying signs that say "Stop the Socialists!" and "Tea Bag The Libs Before They Tea Bag YOU!"

Captain America says the protest appears to be an "anti-tax thing," and The Falcon jokes that he likely would not be welcomed into the crowd of "angry white folks."

Ed Brubaker, who wrote the story, told FoxNews.com he did not write the "Tea Bag The Libs Before They Tea Bag YOU!" sign shown in the edition, insisting that the words were added by someone in "lettering or production" just before being shipped to the printer. It will be changed in subsequent editions, he said.

"I don't know who did it, probably someone who thought it was funny," Brubaker wrote in an e-mail. "I didn't think so, personally. That's the sign being changed to something more generic for the trade reprint, because I and my editor were both shocked to see it."

The "teabaggers," the article notes, are not appeased.

That particular sign may have been added by a letterer, but that letterer did so because it was crystal clear what the writer intended.

I sort of doubt this writer was "shocked" to see the word in the comic. All the letterer did (assuming it was his insertion) was make explicit what the writer clearly implied.

Apology unaccepted.

Compare: Chuck Todd of MSNBC is hopping mad that Bill Sammon of Fox said that the media "hates the tea partiers almost as much as Sarah Palin."

Total lie, Todd says.

And besides -- gee, that's only the opinionistas who hate the Tea Partiers! The "straight reporters" apparently love them.

It's just this weird complete disconnect between reporters and commentators in the media on this issue.

Here's a straight reporter:

And speaking of straight reporters (ahem), Anderson Cooper thinks it's pretty funny to make "teabagger" jokes about Tea Partiers.

But -- you know. Straight (ahem) reporters love the tea partiers and stuff.

There has been a longstanding claim by reporters, disputing that they are liberally biased. Sure, they concede, we tend to be liberal on social issues, but on fiscal matters, we're moderate or conservative, and thus are biases offset. See, we're really centrist moderate independents.

Well, the Tea Party Movement is an expressly fiscal-conservative movement, and we see how "moderate or conservative" these straight (ahem) reporters are on such matters, don't we?

Posted by: Ace at 08:43 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, he does have a daughter by her.

True? Who knows.

John Edwards has proposed to his mistress Rielle Hunter, and is buying a luxury $3.5 million beachfront home where they can live happily ever after with their love child, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

The disgraced presidential candidate popped the question at the same time he told Rielle that he'd be issuing a press statement finally confirming he fathered her daughter Frances Quinn, close sources told The ENQUIRER.

Edwards, 56, released that statement on Jan. 21, and just six days later a spokesperson for his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth confirmed the couple had legally separated after 32 years of marriage. Sources say they expect to be officially divorced within a year, paving the way for the ex-senator to make Rielle, 45, his wife.

Why didn't you come to me like a f*cking man and tell me not to propose to my babymama until after 1) I'm actually divorced or 2) the wife I've been cheating on has succumbed to her terminal cancer?

This is just the perfect storybook feel-good Valentine's Day story, isn't it?

No?

Racist teabagging sons-a-bitches.

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

steve_in_hb had an animal analogy that I've been using a lot lately.

Hamsters are smarter than people -- in one way.

A hamster will always escape his cage. Always.

Because the hamster is "smarter" than you in this one respect: He has absolutely nothing but time on his hands and no thought in his tiny brain except for getting out. So he can spend every waking moment prodding and probing and chewing and gnawing until he makes a little hole for himself.

And you can't. Because you're not as singleminded as the hamster -- you cannot spend all day inspecting his cage. And you have other things on your mind besides a stupid hamster.

But that hamster -- with his tiny pea-sized brain -- will essentially defeat you, because he has only one thing in his mind and no limit to the time and energy he can dedicate to that purpose.

The Democratic Hamsters will gnaw holes in the budget forever.

Until you simply get rid of the useless hamsters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who vowed last week to have a jobs bill on the floor by Monday, now says the Senate may need to work through the weekend to get it done.

Reid said negotiators are in “pretty good shape” but that there are still “a few I's that need to be dotted and T's that need to be crossed.”

To pass a bill before Congress is set to leave for the Presidents Day recess, Reid would need to begin taking procedural steps today. But between the slow pace of negotiations and the wicked weather, itÂ’s not clear whether heÂ’ll be close enough to a deal to begin the move toward a Friday vote.

“We may have to work into the weekend to get it done,” Reid said.

Heaven forfend.

Take your time, Harry.

...

Republican and Democratic aides said negotiations have been complicated by a push to include provisions reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act — set to expire at the end of February — and a debate over whether the bill should include the so-called doc fix, preventing an annual cut to Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.

Other sticking points: Republicans want offshore drilling, more nuclear reactor permits, and some limitation on the death tax. Bush's cut of the death tax to zero is about to expire, and then it would shoot back up to 45% -- a "historic high," the article notes.

Meanwhile Democrats want to stuff more pork into a highway bill supplemental and want an extremely targeted tax cut -- a payroll tax cut for those who hire unemployed workers (presumably, just on that particular guy).

You do realize that this incentivizes a company to fire a current worker and hire an unemployed guy instead, right? And that doesn't really improve our situation, except, perhaps, to spread the misery around a little.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 08:11 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

Apparently NOT a Photoshop.

Click HERE for a monster desktop wallpaper sized version

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:52 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.