Thursday, 19 February 2009

Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom Of Speech

Shortly after Gordon Brown became the unelected Prime Minister of Great Britain in 2007, he made a speech outlining his views on liberty and freedom, which included the following phrase:

“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather than reduces the sphere of freedom.”

If one can ignore the tortuous and robotic prose for a moment, let us fast forward to February 2009 in the aftermath of Geert Wilders banishment from Britain, to hear Labour MP Keith Vaz, the Minister For Europe, state on national television his own particular viewpoint on the sphere of freedom:

“We don’t have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, because I myself have voted on laws preventing people inciting racial hatred and violence.”

Mr Vaz, an immigrant of Yemeni/Portuguese extraction, is clearly proud of the part he has played in restricting the ancient and bloodstained freedoms of Britain. No doubt Vaz is pleased the dark days of 1990 are now behind him, when he wrote to the Guardian to claim “there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech” as he attempted to ban the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

Unfortunately for Vaz, freedom of speech actually existed in 1990 and Rushdie’s book was duly published. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the subversion of British law carried out by Vaz and his ilk means it no longer does in 2009 – witness the Wilders travesty - which rather damns Gordon Brown’s apparently admirable speech as typical socialist spin, if not deliberately disingenuous propaganda.

It is unsurprising that Keith Vaz should raise such words as “racial hatred and violence” in relation to Geert Wilders, this being the default fallback for Muslims with a grievance (a body of people whose members far outnumber Scotsmen of a sunny disposition) but Wilders was not barred in order to prevent the incitement of racial hatred and violence, he was barred because his words and film would:

“…threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.”

This leads to all sorts of questions. The first surely being the blind assumption of community harmony; the second asking which part of the allegedly harmonious community is threatened by the mere presence of Mr Wilders; the third wondering if “therefore public security” is just a more inclusive way of saying “therefore Muslim violence” whilst the not inconsequential fourth and final question can only be - is it actually legal?

Taking one at a time, let us look first at Britain’s harmonious community.

MI5 believe there are up to four thousand potential terrorists and thirteen thousand Al Qaeda sympathisers living in the UK, many of whom are earmarked for the export market (who says British manufacturing is dead) leading the CIA to devote an astonishing 40% of their anti-terrorist US homeland security operations against suspects not in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Waziristan, but in Britain itself - a country described by one CIA operative as “a swamp of Jihadis.”

It is rumoured that the terrorist attacks in Bombay (or Mumbai if you read the Guardian) involved a number British Muslims operating under the banner of Lashkar-e-Taiba otherwise known as the Party of the Righteous or LET, who are ranked alongside Al-Qaeda in terms of a potential terrorist threat by Barack Obama’s counter-terrorist advisor Bruce Riedel, who has stated:

"The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.”

British born Muslims make an estimated four hundred thousand trips a year to Pakistan, where as many as thirty threats against Britain are being monitored at any given time. MI5 is struggling to keep track of them all, quite understandably, as is the newly formed UK Border Agency (motto: we are closed on weekends and bank holidays) so it is obvious that those who wish to destroy us can flit in and out of terrorist training camps in Pakistan to, say, the House of Lords in London, at the drop of a hat.

Despite the oft repeated insistence by British politicians that Islam is a peaceful religion, vast sums of money are thrown at Muslims in the UK in an attempt to stop them blowing the rest of us up.

In 2007 “communities” Minister Hazel Blears earmarked fifty million pounds to invest in “cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions.” Ah, those good old harmonious community tensions. Blears bent over backwards as she sprayed money at Muslim “experts” stating: “Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves but I do think we need to understand how each other lives” prompting the bearded experts, who recognise fear, defeat and Dhimmitude when they smell it, to swiftly trouser the money whilst opining it would do little good as Muslims are instinctively suspicious of any help from the British government, what with them being the infidel and all that.

In it’s overarching desire to be geographically inclusive, my government does not limit its financial largesse to the British mainland alone. When Gordon Brown visited Pakistan recently, he handed over a cheque for six million quid to promote love and peace, whilst the British Foreign Office - who once sent gunboats to troublesome countries - has bankrolled a series of TV adverts for broadcast in Pakistan in which famous Muslim personalities implore those who wish to colonise and convert us to cease forthwith, and to understand and respect us instead.

We Dhimmi Brits can even look forward to a constructive debate on "the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values.” I know, I know, it sounds like something out of the Richard Littlejohn school of “you couldn’t make it up” but I am at a total loss for words here. One can only imagine how constructive the debate would remain if the liberal debatee attempted to date the Muslim debatees sister, or even better, attempted to roger the Muslim himself.

So I think we can safely say there is little or no community harmony in Britain.

In terms of who should feel threatened, it is unlikely to be any of Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 band of brothers, or any other member of Britains Muslim community come to that. It is something of a giveaway really, look to the man surrounded by bodyguards with a price on his infidel head; Mr Geert Wilders himself, the lone surviving Dutchman of outspoken anti-Islamic sentiment.

And what of Public Security? A giveaway again. The British government does not really believe that Wilders is going to strip to the waist and engage in fisticuffs with his Allahu Akbar-ing adversaries. They know as well as the rest of us that a day in the House of Lords is more likely to consist of G&T’s with ice and a slice, than GBH with malice aforethought. I don’t really believe that Mr Wilders, a European parliamentarian, was planning on bringing his gang, or posse, to the House of Lords intent on bashing anyone who shows him “disrespect” unlike Lord Ahmed, the implausible new leader of Britain’s Muslim Street.

Was the banning of Geert Wilders legal? The law used was written specifically to counter Islamic terrorism, rather than countering a man warning us of Islamic terrorism. But as with most recent laws, many of which originate in Brussels, they are vague and catch-all in their character, and deliberately so, in order they may be used against anyone the government disapproves of.

It would have been so much more honest of the British government if it had said the following:

“We understand the content of the film Fitna to consist of the written words of Islam alone,
the spoken words of Islam alone and the physical actions of Islam alone.”

“Sections of these written and spoken words are in direct contravention of British and European laws pursuant to the incitement of racial or religious hatred.”

“We appreciate that Mr Wilders is an elected European politician who does not posess a criminal record and is therefore entitled to visit any EU country he so wishes.”

“We appreciate that Mr Wilders has never called for violence against the Muslim community and that even if faced with violence would seek lawful protection rather than unlawful retaliation.”

“We acknowledge the threats of violence that would impinge upon the public security of Great Britain have come not from Mr Wilders, but from an unelected Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed.”

“We tacitly acknowledge that allowing Mr Wilders the opportunity to argue Islam is an inherantly violent and intolerant faith will cause 10,000 violent and intolerant Muslims to take to the streets of London.”

“We appreciate that the barring of Mr Wilders from Great Britain would necessitate the manipulation and distortion of laws passed to counter Islamic terrorism in order to silence a man warning us of Islamic terrorism.”

“We appreciate that bending British democracy in the face of Muslim threats will have dangerous and far reaching consequences.”

“However, after careful and considered discussion with a number of politicians who have not seen the film Fitna, notably Minister for Europe Keith Vaz and foreign Secretary David Milliband, we would like to close with the following statement…

....The British government is acutely aware of the 2 million plus Muslims within Great Britain, a percentage of whom are fanatical fundamentalists who, quite frankly, frighten the life out of us. Were we to agree that Fitna contains Koranic verses which contravene our laws against inciting racial or religious hatred, then by default we would be forced to arrest 90% of British imams who quote exactly the same verses in mosques all over Britain. This would lead to civil unrest or even civil war if we proscribed certain passages from the Koran itself. It is far easier therefore to distort and misrepresent existing anti-terrorism laws in order to preserve a temporary peace, even if it means shooting British democracy and freedom through the heart, ourselves in the foot, and missing Geert Wilders by a country mile.”

Friday, 13 February 2009

Who is Lord Ahmed

Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least, away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.

In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons’ and Hitlers’ of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling it’s great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.

Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle aged, rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.

Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?

Step forward Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.

But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s resume.

Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the tax paying British public and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.

In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.

In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and multi-faithed country that Britain is now priveliged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.

In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite J├Âran Jermas at, wait for it, The House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.

When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew hating momologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!

According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-semitic publication, and and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: No Jews. Just Right.) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

But such associations hold no fear it would seem for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less than moderate Islam, associated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-semitic variety.

In July 2005, after four self detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. Having exploded no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?

In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue it’s then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.

In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh - a British prison - for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.

Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.

Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive” however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.

In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdies’ crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.

In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:

“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”

In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of it’s Holy Book’s Unholy Words and it’s Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.

A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer great Britain.

Or so we thought.

Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.

I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary school teacher turned Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans – one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.

Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it, even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.

Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words sedition and treason.

Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of her folly. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.

Paul Weston 2009.

Monday, 9 February 2009

Wilders In Wonderland

When Alice fell down a rabbit hole and embarked on her adventures in Wonderland, she discovered a thoroughly surreal environment in which the White Queen was able to advise the Mad Hatter that… “quite often subjects are punished before they commit a crime, rather than after, and sometimes they do not even commit it at all.”

Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.

Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.

Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)

If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.

But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.

It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.

He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.

According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.

The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.

The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.

No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.

This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?

“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”

Quite.

In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?

Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.

What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.

This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:

“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”

Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.

Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.

There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.

Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.

It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.

It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.

Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.

When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.

It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.

There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.

Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.

When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.

The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.

To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.

These politicians are guilty of treason.

If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.

It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.

Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking

Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.

Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.

IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."

So do your bit and spread the word.



Copyright Paul Weston. 2009

.