Barack the Pragmatic

Don't Spare the Poleaxe

Don't Misunderestimate Obama
By Patrick Buchanan
Real Clear Politics

With 68 percent of Americans believing George Bush has done a poor job, and 82 percent saying the country is on the wrong track, the election of 2008 will turn on one issue: Barack Obama.

If Sen. Obama can convince the people he is "one of us," and not some snooty radical liberal from Chicago's Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America as a fever swamp of racism and reaction, a la the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator will be the next president.

The election of 2008 thus mirrors the election of 1980.

Then, the country wanted Jimmy Carter gone. Americans had had enough of 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and 7 percent unemployment. They wanted the Iranian hostage crisis ended, violently if necessary. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America wanted a leader who would not kiss Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek but reassert American power.

The issue then was Ronald Reagan. Portrayed as some Al Capp cartoon of a crazed right-winger and B-Grade Hollywood actor given to spouting Reader's Digest bromides, Reagan was regarded as ridiculous by much of the media and too big a risk by much of the nation.

In one debate with Carter, Reagan erased the misperceptions and turned a close race into a cakewalk. That is Barack's opportunity.

A savvy politician, he has measured correctly the hurdle he must surmount and is moving expeditiously to alter an image of him forged by his own past associations and policy positions. In three weeks, he has jettisoned his new politics in a stunning display of raw pragmatism.

A prime minister must be "a good butcher," H.H. Asquith told Winston Churchill on naming him First Lord of the Admiralty, "and there are several who need to be pole-axed now." Four years later, Asquith would pole-axe Churchill over the Dardanelles disaster.

Obama is not lacking in this capacity that Richard Nixon, too, felt was an indispensable attribute of a statesman.

Samantha Power was tossed off Barack's sledge after calling Hillary a "monster" and suggesting Barack's Iraq timetable was not set in concrete. Robert Malley was canned for having talked to Hamas, though that was his portfolio at a think tank for conflict resolution.

Barack pole-axed pastor Wright and, though he said he could no more repudiate his church than his family, shortly after the second time Wright went off, Barack severed all ties to Trinity United.

Barack has spoken of how he cringed at the racist reaction of his white grandmother after she was accosted by a black man on a bus. Grandma has now been rehabilitated in a new ad as the loving woman who inculcated good old Kansas values into little Barack.

When his own surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, suggested John McCain's war service did not automatically qualify him as presidential timber, a storm erupted. Barack proceeded to cut the general's legs off.

His had been one of a few Senate voices to speak of Palestinian suffering. But Barack's address to the Israeli lobby read like it was plagiarized from the collected works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

When the Supreme Court declared every citizen has a Second Amendment right to a handgun, Barack stood with Justice Scalia. When Scalia said the court ought not to have taken away Louisiana's right to execute child rapists, Barack was with him again.

When Congress voted the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding with the Bush administration in wiretapping citizens, Barack stood with Bush and the telecoms. Fearing it might cost him his huge money-raising advantage over McCain, Barack tossed campaign finance reform over the side.

In Ohio, Barack was a populist opponent of NAFTA. He is now a free-trader. Yet when economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told the Canadians pretty much the same thing, Barack disinherited him.

As July 4 approached, Barack gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org for their "General Betray Us" ad mocking Gen. David Petraeus. And that flag pin Barack got rid of after 9-11, calling it a "substitute ... for real patriotism"? It's back on the lapel.

Last week, Barack said that, after he meets with Petraeus and his field commanders in Iraq, he might "refine" his commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months.

And finally, Obama has co-opted President Bush's faith-based initiative and claimed it as his own.

What is Obama up to? Having secured the nomination, he is moving to convince the nation he is neither a black militant nor a radical, but a man of the center who will even listen to the right.

Though infuriating to readers of The Huffington Post, this may save Barack. For in Middle America folks worry less about politicians adjusting positions than about True Believers willing to go over the cliff with flags flying -- and taking us with them.

Reagan was no Barry Goldwater. He knew when to "hold 'em," and he knew when to "fold 'em." Yet, America still knew who Reagan was.

We may be misunderestimating Barack. But the question of 2008 remains: When all is said and done, who is this guy?

How's my guy doing?

Give Iraq a Timetable

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable for US troops

Jul 8 10:02 AM US/Eastern
By SALLY BUZBEE Breitbart
Associated Press Writer

Iraqi Prime Minister Calls for Date of Withdrawal for US Troops

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. It came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts, and the talks.

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

Some type of agreement between the United States and Iraq is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

Inspirations for Change in America

"Care Planning for Looked After Children" in Welsh

The American Left loves Britain. They pick up the accent on the way from Heathrow to their first night in a London hotel. They use Britishisms with extreme relish and adore the sophistication and progressiveness of the English Left wing establishment.

Britain is also a multi-cultural society on steroids. The country is larded with self loathing politicians, academics and intellectuals. I would not care about the last part if it were not for the former.

The American Left, given the chance, will follow Britain lock step because like Britain, American social services and education are already deeply infiltrated by the Left and poised to expand their grip and control. An Obama presidency will ensure it.

For all the talk and bluster from the Republicans, they have not undone anything created and institutionalized by the Left and the Democrats. A vote for Obama by a disgruntled conservative or Republican is delusional.

Make no mistake about it. The campaign of Barack Obama would be a joke if not for the increasing control the Left has had over American education since the seventies. Youth in America are indoctrinated from nursery school through university by left wing zealots. That trend will continue as the Left is institutionally in control. The control by the Left will be the enduring legacy of Barack Obama.

Creeping socialism and statism owns Britain. Here is the thinking of Paul Ennals, Chief Executive of NCB National Children's Bureau (NCB) in Britain:

Budget Day is our annual chance to set out what we would do if we were Chancellor, in the sure knowledge that no-one would ever trust us with such a responsibility. As a rule, budgets have a central theme, providing a story-line in a mass of deadly detail. This Chancellor has often made children his theme, and we must hope he will do so again this year.

Budgets centre mainly on taxes and benefits – income and expenditure for the Treasury. Most decisions on spending come in the summer, when the Chancellor reveals how much each government department will have to spend for the next three years. But Mr Brown normally uses his budget to announce the odd treat – a rabbit from his hat to keep us entertained.

We already know that he will not contemplate the measure which would really transform our children’s services: increasing taxes. In Sweden, which so often provides inspiration on what can be achieved for children, taxes represent 51% of GDP. Here the argument between Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives centres on whether the tax take should be 40% or 42%. For as long as our nation values low taxes over good services, we can only dream of welfare provision that is truly universal and sufficient.

So what should the Chancellor do about benefits? His key challenge remains reducing child poverty – the single most important step in improving the life chances of children across the country. The Government is within range of meeting its target of cutting child poverty by a quarter by 2004, but the next target is going to be harder, and further radical action is needed. Child tax credit has to rise a further £3 per week if progress is to be maintained.

And what about the treat? If the Chancellor does decide to lob an extra billion somewhere, where should it be? The Children Fund, focussing on preventive services in the poorest areas and facing budget melt-down next year, seems a good candidate. Or what about an increased commitment to opening Children’s Centres ahead of schedule? Or a boost to support services for disabled children – the most marginalised group of children in our nation? We’ll have to wait until this afternoon and see.

And here is CHANGE from the NCB:

Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent Telegraph
07/07/2008

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives".

The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".

Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."

Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instil prejudice, the NCB adds that if children "reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes".

Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

Motivation, Money and Mojo

Photo courtesy of Deuce's Mojo Magic Graphics Studio.

Got my mojo working, but it just won't work on you
Got my mojo working, but it just won't work on you
I wanna love you so bad till I don't know what to do

Mo Motivation
The question in this election is motivation. Will Obama and Company succeed in motivating their usually unmotivated collection of minority groups? Another question is will the Republicans succeed in motivating their disenthralled base? On one hand you have an energetic group ardently committed to change and hope and on the other, you have a rather tired party which is less than thrilled with its nominee. Energetic v. Exhausted. Who wins that contest?

Mo Money
What can I say? Not since the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia has a contest has been this one sided. If money alone were the deciding factor, we could forego the campaign and hold the coronation, uh, inaugural today.

Mo Mojo
Obama nation is on the march and not to be denied. Eight years of George Bush, war and a spend thrift, narcicisstic Republican congress have resulted in a deep-seated Bush Derangement Syndrome. Barack Obama is free to triangulate and navigate politics however he chooses. If he needs to tack right, no problem, he can claim whatever he wishes. It will not matter to Obama acolytes. No gaff will go unforgiven. No flipflop will be too outrageous. Anything will be forgiven if that is the price which must be paid for unseating George Bush and the Republican party.

Obama got his mojo working. McCain ain't got no juice.

Globalisation has Passed its High-Water Mark

Oil price shock means China is at risk of blowing up

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:33am BST 07/07/2008

The great oil shock of 2008 is bad enough for us. It poses a mortal threat to the whole economic strategy of emerging Asia.

The manufacturing revolution of China and her satellites has been built on cheap transport over the past decade. At a stroke, the trade model looks obsolete.

No surprise that Shanghai's bourse is down 56pc since October, one of the world's most spectacular bear markets in half a century.


Asia's intra-trade model is a Ricardian network where goods are shipped in a criss-cross pattern to exploit comparative advantage. Profit margins are wafer-thin.

Products are sent to China for final assembly, then shipped again to Western markets. The snag is obvious. The cost of a 40ft container from Shanghai to Rotterdam has risen threefold since the price of oil exploded.

"The monumental energy price increases will be a 'game-changer' for Asia," said Stephen Jen, currency chief at Morgan Stanley. The region's trade model is about to be "stress-tested".

Energy subsidies have disguised the damage. China has held down electricity prices, though global coal costs have tripled since early 2007. Loss-making industries are being propped up. This merely delays trouble.

"The true impact of the shock will only be revealed over time, as subsidies are gradually rolled back," he said. Last week, China raised internal rail freight rates by 17pc.

BP 's Statistical Review says China's use of energy per unit of gross domestic product is three times that of the US, five times Japan's, and eight times Britain's.

China's factories "were not built with current energy levels in mind", said Mr Jen. The outcome will be "non-linear". My translation: China is at risk of blowing up.

Any low-tech product shipped in bulk - furniture, say, or shoes - is facing the ever-rising tariff of high freight costs. The Asian outsourcing game is over, says CIBC World Markets. "It's not just about labour costs any more: distance costs money," says chief economist Jeff Rubin.

Xinhua says that 2,331 shoe factories in Guangdong have shut down this year, half the total.

North Carolina's furniture industry is coming back from the dead as companies shut plant in China. "We're getting hit with increases up and down the system. It's changing the whole equation of where we produce," said Craftsmaster Furniture.

China is being crunched by the triple effects of commodity costs, 20pc wage inflation, and sagging import demand in the US, Canada, Britain, Spain, Italy, and France.

Critics warn that Beijing has repeated the errors of Tokyo in the 1980s by over-investing in marginal plant. A Communist Party banking system has let rip with cheap credit - steeply negative real interest rates - to buy political time for the regime.

Whether or not this is fair, it is clear that Beijing's mercantilist policy of holding down the yuan to boost exports share has now hit the buffers.

Foreign reserves have reached $1.8 trillion, playing havoc with the money supply. Declared inflation is just 7.7pc, but that does not begin to capture the scale of repressed prices, from fuel to fertilisers. "There is a lot more bottled-up inflation in this economy than meets they eye," says Stephen Green, from Standard Chartered.

Inflation merely steals growth from the future. It defers monetary tightening until matters get out of hand, which is where we are now. Vietnam has already blown up at 30pc. India is on the cusp at 11pc, so is Indonesia (11pc), the Philippines (11pc), Thailand (9pc) - leaving aside the double-digit Gulf.

Of course, oil prices may fall again. They plunged to $50 a barrel in early 2007 after the Saudis raised production. The scissor effect of slowing global growth and extra crude later this year from Brazil, Azerbaijan, Africa, and the Gulf of Mexico may chill the super-boom.

The US Commodities Futures Trading Commission is on an "emergency" footing, under orders from the Democrats on Capitol Hill to smash speculators. If it is really true that investment funds have run amok, we will soon find out.

I suspect that the energy markets have fallen prey to their own version of the "shadow banking system" that so astonished regulators when the credit bubble burst.

I also suspect that Hank Paulson and his EU colleagues have a surprise up their sleeve for the late-cycle über-bulls. Those who claim that derivatives (crude futures) cannot drive spot prices have overlooked a key point. The Saudis and others use the IPE Brent Weighted Average of futures contracts as their pricing mechanism. Futures now set the spot price.

But even if oil comes down for a year or two, the mid-term outlook of the International Energy Agency warns that crude markets will be tighter than ever by 2012. Call it Peak Oil, or just Peak Non-Cooperation by the dictatorships that control most of the world's remaining 5 or 6 trillion barrels (Mankind has used one trillion so far).

Come what may, globalisation has passed its high-water mark. The pendulum will now swing back from China to America. The mercantilists will have to reinvent themselves.

Carbon Blues

It's interesting to see the finger pointing in regard to high energy prices. Congress blames the automakers. The automakers say that's what the market wanted. NGO's blame biofuels for the run-up in food prices. Conservatives blame liberals for blocking everything. Alternative energy proponents blame the carbon gluttens. Watermelons blame the evil capitalists. And it goes on and on.

All I know is that it costs me over $4.00 a gallon to feed my wonderful, comfortable, reasonably safe Tahoe which can get as much as 21-22 mpg on the highway if I keep it around 60-65 mph.

I recently paid my latest utility bill and did some quick calculations to see what my local community owned utility was gouging me for these days. It's just the wife and I plus two dogs and a bird in a three-year old, 2600 SF home.

For the period 5/16/2008-6/16/2008, the bill breakdown is as follows:
Electric Billed Usage 1501 KWH $231.69

Gas 0 CCF $10.45

Water Service 54 CGAl $13.62
Sewer $30.79
Refuse Service $15.30
Stormwater $7.27
Fire Service $13.00

Total Charges $322.32

Turns out, the city is ripping me for 15.45 cents per KWH compared to the national average of 9 cents. How's it look in your neck of the woods? BTW - A friend told me the other day his bill runs about two grand a month.

The Dhimmitude of Britain (continued)

What part of theocracy does this man not understand?
Melanie Phillips
Friday, 4th July 2008

After the Archbishop of Canterbury, now England’s most senior judge, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, has given a green light to the growth of sharia law in Britain in family matters and the arbitration of disputes. It’s not really a surprise that Lord Phillips thinks like this since he actually chaired the meeting where the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, had his sharia moment. Dr Williams, said Lord Phillips, had been misquoted. Not so. It is Lord Phillips who does not appear to understand the significance of what Dr Williams was saying because, as Lord Phillips demonstrated in his own lecture last night at the London Muslim Centre, he is clearly just as ignorant and confused about Islam, sharia and the accepted relationship between religious minorities and the state.

Admitting that he knew little about sharia law, Lord Phillips said he had taken advice in Oman and that as a result of this (clearly highly partial and inadequate) briefing he was able to state:

I understand that it is not the case that for a Muslim to lead his or her life in accordance with these principles will be in conflict with the requirements of the law in this country.

But how can that possibly be the case, when the whole point about sharia is that it recognises no higher authority than itself? Sharia law is therefore by definition inimical to the fundamental rule of British society, that the law of the land is the law for all. Because he clearly doesn’t understand that crucial point, it appears that Lord Phillips thinks that, while reaching out to the Muslim minority, he is nevertheless holding the line for the principle of one law for all. He is wrong. He is destroying it.

He thinks that, because Britain wouldn’t allow sharia punishments to be inflicted – such as stoning or amputation – there would be no problem. He ignores the fact that sharia law is founded upon principles which are inimical to western values, such as the inferiority of women or the requirement to sacrifice free speech in the interests of maintaining the honour of the faith, because the sharia is said to be God’s own law.

He muddles up allowing informal dispute resolution by sharia courts – anyone can informally resolve a dispute by whatever criteria they wish; that has nothing to do with the law -- with the resolution of marital and family issues, a different matter altogether. Although Lord Phillips did not specifically mention the Jewish Beth Din courts, he seems to be labouring under the same delusion as Dr Williams that what Muslims want under sharia courts is the same as Jews already have under the Beth Din. But the huge difference between Jewish and Muslim religious courts is that Jewish courts administer only informal rulings and are bound by the law of the land.

Marriages or divorces of Jews have to be carried out under English law; and in the one instance where the English law was amended in order to enforce a divorce upon a recalcitrant man in certain circumstances, this was only necessary because English family law had authority whereas Jewish family law did not. Since however Muslims regard sharia as superior to secular law, the Phillips/Williams arrangement would establish a two-tier system offering no protection for women, apostates or homosexuals. Even at present, merely turning a blind eye to sharia means condemning many Muslim women to live in fear of their lives, not to mention those who leave the faith. The idea that they could appeal to the English courts for protection is, given the social circumstances, ludicrous.

Next, Lord Phillips repeats the error -- deliberately promoted by the Islamists -- that Principles of Sharia prohibit the earning or paying of interest when what they actually prohibit is not interest – which is even permitted in Saudi Arabia, for heaven’s sake -- but usury. The prohibition of interest was invented by 20th century Islamists to use ‘sharia finance’ as a means of Islamising the western public sphere.

Next, Lord Phillips says he ‘understands’ that terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing are in conflict with Islamic principles. In which case, why are suicide bombings mandated as a religious duty by some of the most authoritative legal authorities in the Islamic world such as Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi and (on occasion) Sheikh Tantawi of al Azhar university in Cairo?

If anyone were in any doubt why the Islamists are so overjoyed by Lord Phillips’s most ill-advised remarks, they only have to read the response by the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Mohammed abdul Bari. He made it plain that he does not want a parallel legal system. He wants English law to become Islamised:

I believe I speak for a vast majority of Muslims when I say that we do not want separate Courts or parallel legal system. What we do want is a judiciary that is sensitive to our divine laws on personal relationships and family matters. Judges involved in family matters need to have knowledge of our rights and obligations as Muslims in Sharia law.

Lord Phillips extols ‘equality under the law’. What he does not seem to grasp is that this means Muslims should be treated equally with all other minorities. And all others acknowledge that they live under the law of the land. They do not expect the law of the land to change to accommodate them.

One final point about Lord Phillips’s craven naivety. At the beginning of his talk, he disclosed for the very first time that he has Jewish ancestry in that his maternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants to Britain. He presumably vouchsafed this information, which he has never before made known in public, in order to ingratiate himself with his Muslim audience on the presumed grounds that they would warm to his identifying a common experience with them of being in some sense an outsider to the culture.

However, he delivered his address at the London Muslim Centre. This centre shares the ideology of Jamaat e Islami, an extremist Islamist organisation which aims to Islamise the state and follows the teachings of Maulana al Maududi, who believed that the Jews worshipped Satan. The dignatory who opened the Centre a few years ago was one Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, who has in the past called the Jews ‘calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs.. these are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil and corruption’.

This is where Lord Phillips chose to use his Jewish background to grovel to those who would destroy the very values which afforded his maternal grandparents sanctuary. How can England’s most important judge be quite so clueless?

This is the same Lord Phillips who says life sentences are cruel and unusual.
Why do I think Lord Phillips is a man our own Justice Kennedy looks to for his "evolving standards of decency?"

The Dhimmitude of Britain

Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity
By Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester
Last updated: 2:28 AM GMT 11/01/2008

In fewer than 50 years, Britain has changed from being a society with an acknowledged Christian basis to one which is increasingly described by politicians and the media as "multifaith".

* Bishop warns of no-go zones for non-Muslims

One reason for this is the arrival of large numbers of people of other faiths to these shores. Their arrival has coincided with the end of the Empire which brought about a widespread questioning of Britain's role.

On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of "multiculturalism".

This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.

Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.

Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.

Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker.

This is happening here even though some Muslim-majority communities are trying to reduce noise levels from multiple mosques announcing this call, one after the other, over quite a small geographical area.

There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain. To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered?

It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain.

The existence of chapels and chaplaincies in places such as hospitals, prisons and institutions of further and higher education is in jeopardy either because of financial cuts or because the authorities want "multifaith" provision, without regard to the distinctively Christian character of the nation's laws, values, customs and culture.

Not only locally, but at the national level also the establishment of the Church of England is being eroded. My fear is, in the end, nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

In the past, I have supported the establishment of the Church, but now I have to ask if it is only the forms that are left and the substance rapidly disappearing. If such is the case, is it worth persevering with the trappings of establishment?

Much of this has come about because of a "neutral" secularist approach which refuses to privilege any faith. In fact, secularism has its own agenda and it is certainly not neutral. It is perfectly possible for Britain to welcome people on the basis of its Christian heritage.

Christian chaplains can arrange for people of other faiths to have access to their own spiritual leaders without compromising the Christian basis of their own ministry.

Instead of this, the multifaith "mish mash" is producing a new, de facto, establishment as the Government attempts to bring particular communities on to its agenda for integration and cohesion, an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision.

If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one.

At last it seems the Government may be waking up to the situation; to the importance of English as a means of communication, to greater integration in housing, schools, and leisure pursuits and in citizenship education.

But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image.

It has to do with a prophetic passion for justice and compassion and it has to do with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ regarding humility, service and sacrifice. Let us pledge in this New Year to restore this noble vision to the centre of our national life.
Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574695/Extremism-flourished-as-UK-lost-Christianity.html