Gurkha Justice Campaign Update

This week's email from Joanna Lumley:

Just a quick note to again thank you for your support and update you on the Gurkha Justice Campaign - www.gurkhajustice.org.uk

With over 80,000 signatures and rising, we are still getting thousands of new supporters every day. We're still working to get the message out about the campaign - last week Al Murray gave us a tremendous boost on his show Al Murray's Happy Hour.

If you haven't already done so, PLEASE pass on our need for signatures to everyone you know and ask them to do likewise. Please send it to your address book. We really need this campaign to spread all across the country - like wild-fire.

This week I'm pleased to say there will be adverts in the next few days in a number of newspapers including the Daily Mail, Guardian and Telegraph promoting the campaign.

We've had some great stories from supporters across the country, from people collecting signatures at car boot sales and street stalls, to people putting links on their web sites and telling all their friends - it is making a big difference. Thank you so much to all those who have written and emailed - there are so many we simply can't reply to all of them personally, so please forgive us. I PROMISE they are being read and appreciated.

The huge number of messages of support and offers of help have been fantastic, but we still really need more help. If possible, can you can help us get the message out in the following ways:

1. If you have a blog, web site, Facebook page or similar, please put a message about www.gurkhajustice.org.uk encouraging people to sign the petition. You could also post a message in any discussion forums you use online.

2. Print out the form at www.gurkhajustice.org.uk/gurkha_campaign_petition_form.pdf and get friends and family to sign. Please make sure you return it to us by 16th November.

3. Pass the message to as many people as you can. Whether you forward this email to your contact list, give people a call, or write a letter to your local paper to ask others to sign the petition at www.gurkhajustice.org.uk - we really need your help.

A great example of one supporter promoting our site is a video we saw on YouTube last week. We found it extremely moving. See what you think at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MEPvmPdDzYc

Finally, a very special date for your diary - 20th November. There will be more details soon, but we will be handing in the Gurkha Justice petition to Downing Street on that day. Some special guests and I will be meeting in Parliament Square at around 11am. Anyone who can come along to join us and show their support for the Gurkhas campaign in person on that day will be most welcome.

With warmest good wishes,

Joanna
www.gurkhajustice.org.uk

PS. We've sold hundreds of Gurkha Justice t-shirts and sweatshirts at our online shop http://gurkhajustice.spreadshirt.net

Thank you to all those who have bought them - I hope you are wearing them with as much pride as I do mine, and helping spread the message about the campaign.

Democrats For Life: Endorsements

"Democrats For Life of America is proud to announce our endorsements for the U.S Senate and House":

Pro-life Democrats are pulling up in the polls in both the federal and state level. We are proud of the candidates listed below and are confident that they will all work hard to promote and pass legislation that will protect life at all stages. Importantly, we hope they will swell the ranks of our current pro-life members who are so dedicated to protecting pro-life issues in the Congress including Congressmen Altmire, Berry, Boren, Costello, Cuellar, Davis, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Holden, Kildee, Lipinski, Marshall, McIntyre, Melancon, Mollohan, Murtha, Oberstar, Ortiz, Peterson, Rahall, Skelton, Shuler, Stupak, Taylor and Wilson.

US Senate - Ronnie Musgrove (MS) (DFLA Priority Candidate)

Mississippi Governor since 2000, Ronnie Musgrove now challenges Republican Roger Wicker, who assumed Republican Trent Lott's Senate seat when he resigned in December 2007. There is no clear favorite in this race. Musgrove's statewide recognition could be the key to removing this seat from the Republicans. Also, his strong pro-life record will help in this pro-life state. As a State Senator, he supported a 24-hour waiting period before a women could obtain an abortion and to require those performing more than 5 abortions a month to be licensed as abortion clinics. As Governor of Mississippi, Musgrove signed a bill to ban public funding of abortion. He would be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate for pro-life Democratic Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey.

U.S. House Races

Bobby Bright (AL-02, open seat) DFLA Priority Candidate!

Bobby Bright was elected Mayor of the City of Montgomery, Alabama in 1999 and has been re-elected twice. He now challenges Republican candidate Jay Love for the 2nd Congressional District seat of retiring Republican Terry Everett. Although Love has a small lead in the polls, Bright could be the Democrat to challenge the area's Republican tradition. A poll that John Anzalone conducted for Bright's campaign shows that he has a strong lead among independents (51% to 37%). He has the support of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition and has made financial security a core feature of his campaign.

Parker Griffith (AL-05, open seat) (DFLA endorsed)

With Democrat Robert E. "Bud" Cramer retiring from the 5th Congressional District, pro-life Democrat Parker Griffith hopes to defeat Republican challenger Wayne Parker and keep the district Democratic. Griffith has the advantage of Cramer's popularity and Parker's previous failed attempts in 1994 and 1996 to gain the seat. The race is close in funding and polling, with no clear lead. A former teacher and now a medical doctor, Griffith has the support of Alabama's State Fraternal Order of Police and the testimony of dozens of former patients. He says he is pro-life because as a doctor he has spent his "entire career as North Alabama's first Radiation Oncologist trying to saves lives" and he "understands how precious life is."

Doug Heckman (GA-07) (DFLA endorsed)

Doug Heckman challenges incumbent Republican Rep. John Linder for Georgia's 7th Congressional District seat. Linder has held that position since 1992. Doug, a West Point graduate, currently serves as a special forces colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. He was endorsed by General Wesley Clark.

Mike Montagano (IN-03) (DFLA endorsed)

Although earlier polls favor incumbent Republican Rep. Mark Souder to win Indiana's 3rd Congressional District, recent news that most undecided voters do not identify as Republican is good news for challenger Mike Montagano. Montagano recently aired a commercial (which can be viewed here) where he explicitly highlights his pro-life beliefs. For that reason, he is faring well against the Republican candidate. Increasing name-recognition and advertising will be key as the election draws near. Recent polls put him within 5 points of the Republican incumbent.

David Boswell (KY-02, open seat) DFLA Priority Candidate!

After more than 30 years of public service, State Senator David Boswell of Owensboro, Kentucky is running for the open seat of retiring Republican Representative Ron Lewis of Congressional District 2. In addition to a good reputation and the respect of State Senators from both parties, Boswell enjoys strong support from his own party, having won all 21 counties in the primary. Kentucky has a long Democratic tradition, and in 2007 Democrat Steve Beshear defeated incumbent Republican Ernie Fletcher to become governor. In a campaign poll conducted October 8-9, Boswell maintained a small lead over opponent Brett Guthrie 41% to 40%. As for voter perceptions of the candidates, Boswell has a significant advantage: more than two-to-one voters who know Boswell view him positively, whereas Guthrie's margin is barely favorable. The Boswell campaign considers him "poised to win" with "solid prospects of victory."

Don Cazayoux (LA-06) (DLFA endorsed)

Pro-life Democrat Don Cazayoux won a May 3, 2008 special election to gain Louisiana's 6th Congressional District. In the conservative-leaning Baton Rouge area, Cazayoux was a strong candidate in part because of his economic platform and his pro-life committment. A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee poll conducted October 8-9 shows Cazayoux with a lead of 46% compared to Republican challenger state Sen. Bill Cassidy's 29% and independent state Rep. Michael Jackson's 9%. Jackson lost to Cazayoux in the Democratic primary and poses a threat to securing the vote of African Americans, who represent one-third of district residents. Cazayoux will need to emphasize his approval ratings and performance this year to beat Cassidy's strong campaign and minimize Jackson's impact.

Joseph Larkin (MI-11) (DFLA Endoresed)

Lawyer Joseph Larkin faces incumbent Republican Thaddeus McCotter, who has represented Michigan's 11th Congressional District since 2002. Although McCotter is confident that he will win, Larkin has the support of several workers' associations. Larkin also supports term limitations and advocates a "citizen Congress" rather than career politicians.

Travis Childers (MS-01) (DFLA endorsed)

In a surprise win May 13, Travis Childers won a special election to replace Republican Rep. Roger Wickers in representing the 1st Congressional District of Mississippi. Since then, Childers' rating among voters has remained strong. He defeated Republican Mayor of Southaven Greg Davis in May by eight points and is poised to defeat him again. Thus far, Davis has been unable to convince voters to return the seat to Republican representation in a race that now leans Democratic.

Jim Esch (NE-02) DFLA Priority Candidate!

In his second run for political office, pro-life Democrat Jim Esch is challenging Republican incumbent Lee Terry to represent Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. The district includes the core of the Omaha metropolitan area, Nebraska's Democratic base and home to three-fourths of the state's growing African American population. In the 2006 Senate race, pro-life Democratic Senator Ben Nelson won the District's Douglas County by over 30%, a good sign for Esch. An Anzalone-Liszt poll conducted October 13-15 shows Esch and Terry in a dead heat, with Terry's approval rating in decline. Esch leads 51% to 41% with voters who have not registered with either party. Although the district has leaned Republican in the past, the margin of support for Republicans has diminished, and polls reveal a close Presidential race. High voter turnout could swing this district blue.

Steve Driehaus (OH-01) DFLA Priority Candidate!

After three terms as a moderate Democrat in the Ohio House, Steve Driehaus is running against 1st Congressional District incumbent Republican Steve Chabot. Although Chabot has already served seven terms, his win in 2006 was his narrowest. The current political environment strongly favors Democrats, and high spending from both campaigns demonstrates that this race is tight. Driehaus emphasizes his fiscal conservatism and his previous efforts in the state legislature to address the foreclosure crisis. An independent Research 2000 poll shows Driehaus with a 46% to 44% lead against Chabot. A greater turnout among Democratic voters during this year's presidential election could be the boost Driehaus needs to end Chabot's tenure.

Bill O'Neill (OH-14) (DFLA endorsed)

Although Republican Steven C. LaTourette survived his party's battering in 2006, in Bill O'Neill he faces the toughest challenge in his seven terms as Representative of Ohio's 14th Congressional District. O'Neill is a former state appellate judge, a nurse on weekends and evenings, and a single father who has raised his four children since their mother's death in an automobile accident in 1995. LaTourette is favored, but O'Neill has raised more money than previous Democratic opponents. He could pull of a victory.

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) DFLA Priority Candidate!

Republican incumbent Phil English is running for an eighth term in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. After a mediocre win against a weak candidate during his last race, Democrats have high hopes that English's days representing Erie and greater northwestern Pennsylvania are numbered. Dahlkemper has proven her commitment to improving the industrial region's economy, earning an endorsement from Erie's General Electric Union and many other unions and workers' organizations. Union representatives have spoken out in support of Dahlkemper and against English's poor record on trade, wages, and other issues relevant to workers. The numbers testify to Dahlkemper's strength: an independent Research 2000 poll from October 6-8 showed her leading with 48% to English's 41%, with even greater support for Dahlkemper (57% to 31%) in English's home base of Erie County. With a mid-month endorsement from fellow Democrat Senator Robert Casey, Jr., Dahlkemper's victory is in sight.

But where is Bob Conley?

Anti-War, Pro-Military

Because the point of the Armed Forces is to prevent wars.

By deterring them.

And, of course, to fight them if anyone nevertheless does start them against us.

The point of Armed Forces is not to be sent, by those who would never dream of sending themselves or their families, to war against people who pose no threat whatever to us, and might even be our more natural allies than the alternatives in their own countries.

Such less natural allies (to say the very least) include those who have taken over Iraq since the removal of Saddam Hussein, witting or unwitting Protector of the Church. And they include either the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or the National Bolsheviks, the only alternatives to Putin and Medvedev, guardians of Biblical-Classical civilisation and now even funders of the building of Catholic churches (initially in Tartarstan, but the line has been crossed).

And wars are not conservative.

They cost taxpayers vast sums of money. You might argue that the taxpayers should simply have been able to keep that money. Or you might argue that it should have been spent on fighting want, ignorance, ill health, idleness and squalor. But either way, you cannot argue for spending it on wars instead, if at all avoidable.

They create new enemies (and entrench or embitter old ones), and thus create future threats.

And they are morally and socially disruptive. Everything to do with the Swinging Sixties started during the War. Just ask anyone of that generation. My late father always made that point in the Eighties, when Margaret Thatcher was on about the Sixties: she was right (not that her own policies did anything to help matters, to say the very least), but it really all went back to the War.

Now these things are being said openly, in television documentaries and in newspaper interviews with aged figures: the epidemic of venereal disease during the War, how London's and other cities' parks were turned on VE Night into giant outdoor orgies worthy of (indeed, surpassing) anything to come in the summer of 1968, and so much else besides. We all laugh at the old ladies from whose bedrooms the Normandy Landings were allegedly launched, and such like. But it was no laughing matter.

Sometimes a war is inescapable, such as when our territory is invaded. But we are neither fighting nor facing any such war today.

The Republican Party and Pro-Life

I really could despair of people who persist in the fantasy that the Republican Party is pro-life. Applying this from the GOP generally to John McCain in particular is a point at which delusion becomes insanity. But at least, I suppose, he used to be honest, at least until this bid for the Presidency started. In that, he was like Bush the Elder, more or less. Or Bob Dole, whom he resembles in so very many ways.

By contrast, Bush the Younger is, as Reagan was, a full-blown liar and hypocrite on this subject, who makes no real bones about the fact that pretending to be pro-life prevents the Republican Party from becoming just another eccentricity of the East Coast super-rich, and instead keeps huge numbers of naturally and historically Democratic white Evangelicals and blue-collar Catholics voting to destroy their own jobs and, lately, to massacre their own sons. All in return for absolutely no change whatever in the abortion law. None. Nada. Zilch.

Or, at least, it did. This year, enough of them appear to have had enough. Not before time. The Republican Epoch that has lasted since 1968 is coming to an end; it in turn succeeded that Democratic Epoch that has lasted since 1932. There will occasionally be Republican Presidents in the coming decades, but they will be as popular on the Republican Right as Eisenhower was, or as Carter and Clinton were on the Democratic Left. Key to this epochal shift is the return - in large numbers this time, in huge numbers next time, and then as a settled fact for a very long time - of the abused white Evangelicals and blue-collar Catholics.

That, in turn, represents a change in the Democratic Party. It was changed by their exit, leaving only the more-or-less secular liberals, who are rich enough not to care too much about social justice, and indeed are often so rich that they are positively hostile to it, since they benefit so considerably and conspicuously from unbridled capitalism. Many people like that, especially in the North East, used to be Republicans. But the influx drove them out. Its reversal will drive them out of the Democratic Party and back to a GOP much as it was before they felt moved to leave it. Good riddance.

So what will the Democratic Party be like, during the new Democratic Epoch? It can, should, and I trust will be the party of family values, the protection of workers and consumers, strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, fair trade and fair tax, constitutional checks and balances, universal health care, national security, Social Security, energy independence, environmental responsibility, Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, Civil Rights, America as an English-speaking country, and foreign policy realism.

Much as it once was, in fact. Back when it used to win Presidential Elections. But without the Make The World Anew warmongering and trigger-happiness. Without the niggling doubts about the capacity of the State, at least at federal level, in domestic policy. And without the racism, which cannot come back now that the blacks have equal voting rights in practice as well as in theory, votes which they do and will cast for this, a party so very much in their image.

(Parties like that are quite normal internationally, and by no means only on the fringes. The German CDU was much in that vein in the pre-Merkel days when it was still true to its name and heritage. The CSU still largely is. Even one of the old East German block parties, notionally set up for Christian Democrats, very occasionally gave the powers that be a shock and voted against, especially, abortion as a matter of party policy. Why should it only ever be anti-life and anti-family positions that have the benefit of a Party Whip?)

The Republicans, meanwhile, now actively wish to be rid of those who will be, and are, returning to this restored Democratic Party. They have deliberately sought out someone from that background, but who just happens to be a perfectly ridiculous person, and made her their wholly incredible Vice-Presidential nominee, so that they can blame "the Religious Right" for their impending electoral catastrophe.

The compliment will be, and is being, returned in full.

Where Should The House of Commons Sit?

While they sort out the asbestos, I mean.

And why?

I suppose that it might sit in the mornings and the Lords in the same chamber in the afternoons, or vice versa.

And I did think that it might go on tour. But then, where would put up with the enormous, lavish "security" of the thing? Where would want its vast army of self-important hangers-on despoiling the bars and the restaurants? And how many MPs would even turn up if it sat outside the West End? (Still, perhaps not that much fewer than at present, which isn't exactly saying a lot.)

So maybe it could meet in the Lords chamber while the Lords went on tour? The Lords has become a far more Londonised House since Blair removed most the hereditaries and took to handing out peerages in the streets of the achingly faaaashionable metropolitan neighbourhoods. But most of "Tony's Cronies" rarely or never turn up, anyway. They just use the title to secure the best tables and that sort of thing.

Furthermore, if the Lords went on tour, then, unlike if the Commons did so, those who went (and not least, those who were taken by their schools) to see it would witness the things that one might naturally associate with Parliament: proper questions, and debates properly so called, and even - brace yourself - votes. Yes, votes. They still happen in the Lords. What an absurd anachronism it clearly is.

Doped No More?

The Question Time panel moved seamlessly, and without a hint of irony, from why Britain needs more immigration to why the British must instill in their children the urgency of not producing any British grandchildren, complete with the usual ignorant blether against Catholics. (No one asked Baroness Warsi whether she believed that her husband might ever be permitted to take a second, third or even fourth wife. She says yes, or she denies the Qur'an, and with it Muhammad's Prophethood. Which is it, and why?)

The panellists are, of course, economic beneficiaries of the importation of a new working class whose members understand nothing of the local language except commands, know nothing about workers' rights in the host country, can be deported if they step out of line, can (since they have no affinity with any particular part of the host country) be moved around at will, and are frequently committed to the Islamisation within and under which those who have imported them hope for that privileged dhimmitude which existed in Moorish Spain.

Catholics are not, of course, opposed to the regulation of births. We are opposed to their regulation, if that is the word, by the pumping of women and girls full of a very powerful drug so that they are constantly available for the sexual gratification of men and boys. We are opposed to their regulation, if that is the word, by means which, since they do not require to be used by a faithful married couple in order to work properly, constitute no check against promiscuity, but rather the reverse.

We are opposed to an economic system which compels (and there is really no "choice" involved) even the married mothers of young children to work outside the home merely in order to maintain a basic household income. And we are opposed to the organised, and highly lucrative, lying about the alleged efficacy of, in particular, condoms against venereal disease (never mind having your heart broken), together with the underlying snobbery, misogyny and racism of that lucrative lie machine.

By all means teach all of that to teenagers.

Teaching for which we may not now have too long to wait.

As is very occasionally even reported on things like Woman's Hour these days, Natural Family Planning is increasingly popular, and is now held in very high regard in clinical practice wherever that has not been hijacked at public expense by the likes of Brook (procurers of young girls for older men) and Planned Parenthood (selective breeders out of specified ethnic groups around the world). The medical side effects of taking a chemical so powerful that it can actually stop a woman's reproductive cycle are also now starting to gain coverage. As is the growing opposition to condomania in eighty-seven per cent non-Catholic Africa, where it simply hasn't worked at all.

And as is the dangerous depopulation of the West.

Next, I hope and expect, will be the clear connection between the decision that femaleness, simply in itself, was a medicable condition requiring the pumping of women's and girls' bodies full of highly poisonous substances in order to stop those bodies from doing what they do naturally, and the decision to treat maleness in the same way, and to get in even younger than we did with femaleness. Mostly for being born boys rather than the girls wanted and expected by their mothers (more and more of whom know little or nothing about men or boys anyway), half a million children in this country alone are now drugged up to their eyeballs with Ritalin and such like as "treatment" for various non-existent conditions. Ritalin, we may say, is that long-elusive thing, "The Male Pill".

"Sex Education": A Classic, Indeed

From Martin Meenagh:

The truth is that very few people need to be educated about sex, especially not children. People in general need to be educated about themselves and others as human beings. The best way to do this is to give people an inner life and a disciplined mind that contains stores to be drawn upon in idle moments. Good flows from good.

That way, the impulse for empty gratification won't be a driving demon, just a part of being human, and people might grow into individuals who would not only feel ashamed if they used another, but who might also see how silly a thing sex was. It makes fools of all of us, and yet many in this identity-driven consumerist society insist on defining themselves and others by it.

So, no sex education for kids--but teach them all about the Lays of Ancient Rome. In Latin. It's much more rational and it will be of practical benefit when all the buses and trains break down and the planes are grounded. I daresay that a capacity to establish the vocative case is a fairly good contraceptive too, once you start telling people about it (though that didn't work for Abelard and Heloise).

More serious cases should learn Greek. These things are life skills. I got stuck on the train this morning and I got through six verses of Lepanto before I got off and walked, whistling. Other people were channelling shergar through their snorted breathing, which I assumed signified frustration.

I'm not so sure the media and the retail industry would approve, but my basic point is that teachers and governments have no business perpetrating the failed cult of sex education upon children when they could be using their formative years to mould better people.

He's another one who should apply to be a People's Peer.