Replacing homosexuality with Melanie Phillips

Here’s a question ­shortly coming to an examination ­paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with Melanie Phillips

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with Melanie Phillips in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the Melanie Phillips agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why Melanie Phillips moves from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of Melanies in the population.

In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this Melanie Phillips is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by Melanie Phillips to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour.

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that Melanie Phillips normal. The fight over Proposition Moonbat, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote Melanie Phillips

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards Melanie Phillips has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away Melanie Phillips — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the Melanie Phillips merely for upholding ­Christian values. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with Melanie Phillips. Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying Melanie Phillips is a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the Melanie Phillips agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for Melanie Phillips-friendly hotels, Melanie Phillips adoption and Melanie Phillips mathematics, now comes, apparently, Melanie Phillips drug policy. Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new ­members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Melanie Phillips.

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in ­support of the rights of people to express their views against Melanie Phillips - although, by ­contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true.

Indeed, the obsession with Melanie Phillips has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, ­ Welsh speakers and Melanie Phillips.

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including Melanie Phillips.

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the Melanie Phillips agenda. But the seemingly all-­powerful Melanie Phillips rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning Melanie Phillips from being the victim of prejudice into Britain’s new Senator McCarthy.

Original.

Things aren't the same as they used to be, which is really bad

One of the worst things about politically correct, touchy feely modern day New Labour Britain, is how wonderful things from yesteryear have been twisted now into shameful objects of burning reproach.

I remember with a melancholy fondness the days when you could call a spade a spade without fear of the PC brigade jumping down your throat, telling you not to use such words for fear of offending all the other garden tools (of course, when I say spade I mean paki), or those dizzy summer afternoons spent hunting down the queers and playfully bashing their little heads in with pebbles from the village pond. It was the only way to keep the gene pool healthy.

Those magical times existed before silly, bureaucratic words like 'hate crime' and 'bigotry' were even invented. Then, our bountiful motherland lay serene in the knowledge that she was protected by a fierce nationalism running through her people; suspicion of foreigners wasn't the shameful secret is has become today, but an integral part of being British, and the desire to protect the indigenous population from dark, un-Christian forces from across the Channel was encouraged. Patriotism, bolstered by fear and loathing of the shadowy beings from far flung lands, was proud and strong. Men were prepared to give their lives fighting back the malignant tide of exotic foreign forces lapping at our shores, while others colonised distant lands for the greater glory of the Empire.

Make no mistake, England has a long and illustrious history of which only the most cynical could not express reverence. Our subjects feared and admired us, and our people were proudly monochromatic. Everyone can agree that, throughout the ages, it is England that stands alone as the great benefactor, bringer of peace, and cleanser of nations.

Is it not extraordinary, then, to learn that some people claim not to swell with pride at the thought of stirring victories of battles past, tribes conquered, and dragons slain, but, perversely, to desire the promotion of a universal (not national) brotherhood? Since when did we win wars by befriending the savages? Who decreed that we should not just welcome the enemy at our gates, but invite him in and offer up our finest tea and biscuits while he defecates on our couch? 'Oh, don't get mad', they say, those liberals up there, above, on their balconies with the carvings, and the strings that they pull, 'Oh no, don't shout, it's just their way, it's what they do. Let them be', they'll say.

Today, unnecessary foreign wars are deemed unacceptable. Now, rather than brutally convert the Muslims to save them from themselves, we let them in to settle in our towns and cities, and we don't bat an eyelid as they take our jobs, and wives, and motor vehicles, and shoes. We are told not to view the Other with healthy suspicion or cross the street lest he eat our eyes, but to welcome him to the neighbourhood without so much as a brick through the window. Nationalism is abjected in favour of the black hell of multiculturalism, while the old patriots die in their urine sodden chairs in the nursing home, weeping as their grand-daughters marry young Indian boys from China. 'Katherine', old Tom whispers under his tattered blanket, 'Young girl, why? why do you renounce your land, and your mother, your people, home, why, did she really hurt you so much? how did it happen? when did it start, and how will it end?', they scream in silence, and sit, and stare, as robins die in the snow outside the window.

These are strange new times, indeed. For two thousand years everything has remained the same, magnificent and strong like a great stallion bursting with its own virility, but now things are changing. The noble steed has withered, his testes shrunken by decades of progressive thinking from a narrow, arrogant elite. New people and novel ideas spring up all around; things change, and I am scared.

Children are no longer beaten or scolded for speaking before the age of 5. Now they are little people, with feelings and thoughts and words all of their own scurrying about, hiding in corners with their liberal ideals and Marxist values. Schools preach tolerance, and foreign languages, but dismiss national pride. Women can vote. Wars are discouraged. Sodomisers are welcomed with open arms and an imported French kiss. The guns rust, the cannons were silenced long ago. Names change, 'Adam' and 'Jack' are pushed aside by 'Mohamed', and 'Salazar'. Science has replaced God, and history is dead.

Everything has been turned upside down. With a ruptured heart and poisoned blood, this is the way England ends.

MELANIE PHILLIPS: Now endorsed by the BNP

Special report by Claude.

Mail columnist book now officially on sale on far-right online shop as 'recommended reading'.

This should come as no surprise. For years now, at least twice a week, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips has been banging on about immigration and what some people refer to as the "Islamification of Britain".

So here we are. For all the Daily Mail's disclaimers that they're anti-BNP (often recited as foreword to some virulently anti-immigration "opinion column"), the consonance is so striking that the BNP website is now selling Melanie Phillips' own book Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within, along with right-wing nut classics such as Vienna 1683: Christian Europe Repels the Ottomans.


Quoting several paragraphs from her book, the BNP site refers to it as "recommended reading" as well as "a revealing insight into the Islamist threat facing Britain".

So, as some citizens begin to connect years of tabloid headlines lashing out at the same target and the recent surge in far-right demonstrations across Britain (for a small but representative selection, please see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this), here comes the BNP's official endorsement of one of the Daily Mail's star columnists.

Melanie Phillips can now be proud: a bunch of white supremacists, sexists, homophobes and holocaust deniers are now officially amongst her biggest fans.

Cross posted from Hagley Road to Ladywood.

Mad Mel: The truth eater

Once again, class war has broken out in the Labour Party. Yet another Labour politician has issued the tribal rallying cry to bash the middle classes blah blah honk bleat shrill hoot bleugh class war argh

Oh, what's the use? Sod it, have a picture.

The tyranny of the gay agenda

Iain Duncan Smith and his band of super Tories at the Centre for Social Justice are to issue a report which will shape Conservative policy on the family. It is widely expected to put the God-given sanctity of marriage at the heart of family life, make divorce more difficult and promote marriage preparation classes and 'family relationship centres', as well as tax breaks for married couples.

Hooray!

The report comes not a minute too late, following countless years of social engineering designed by Labour to do nothing but obliterate traditional familial values of a mother, father and two children sitting round a stone fireplace telling ripping tales of Grandad's adventures in the Great War.

Four decades of allowing the liberal intelligentsia of both the right and the Left free reign to undo the seams of the nuclear family under the multicoloured banners of so-called 'freedom', 'equality' and 'queerity' have wreaked untold havoc upon Britain. Is it any coincidence that we find ourselves entrenched in the worst recession since the early twentieth century just as David Cameron, or General Pinkochet as he is known in some circles, apologises for Section 28?

High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge recently observed that family courts are groaning under the weight of cases involving damaged, miserable or disturbed children. In the glory days of yesteryear, when homosexuality was still punishable by a good spanking and a day in the stocks, family courts were of course full of smiley carefree youngsters, untroubled by the uncertainty of when daddy would return from Hampstead Heath or why mummy was wearing trousers and a string vest.

And yet, for years, anyone who drew attention to the fact that gays were ruining the Earth and upsetting Jesus was pilloried as a bigot who wanted to turn back the clock to some mythical golden age. 'Waiting for a real rain to come?', they would sneer at me as I'd snort coffee into my newspaper with rage at the licentiousness of a hotpant wearing pair of queens sashaying past, flaunting their selfish lifestyle choices for all to see.

But those queens have become a symbol for the erosion of family values against a backdrop of family breakdown.

The ConservaTories' admirable desire to restore the holy union of marriage to the rightful centre-piece of the British family is sadly undermined by their suspiciously flamboyant leader's recognition and, indeed, support for 'gay rights'.

A liberal society should be tolerant of gay people – just as it should tolerate the disabled, the obese, and spiders.

But, unrestrained, tolerance can go too far. Surely society would crumble if it were to allow raging homosexuals the same rights as non-perverts; imagine your horror if, for example, you discovered your young son’s favourite teacher was gay, or a lesbian was driving your taxi.

Cameron's apology last week for the Tories' brave attempts to stop lunatic lefty councils distributing gay propaganda in schools provoked widespread scorn - including the gays themselves, who saw it as political posturing to win the fabulous vote.

The truth about the 'gay rights' agenda is that it aims not just to promote acceptance, but actively encourages the idea that gay is preferable to straight; that 'different' is better than 'normal' and 'wrong' righter than 'right'.

Militant gays claim that 'lifestyle choice' means gay relationships should be treated identically to heterosexual ones.

But the core reason for family breakdown is precisely the view that marriage is merely a 'relationship' for people to choose or not from a menu of destructive alternative lifestyles.

It is not, and here Cameron's absurd fruit-baiting tolerance falls apart. If he were to truly believe in the peerless position of marriage as the best choice for loving families, he would legislate against the amoral 'relationship choices' vying for support against it. Heterosexual couples in a relationship for longer than two years need to be told to stop pussy footing around and tie the knot, while a stern message needs to be sent to the gays to just stop it altogether.

Their vicious selfishness, which manifests itself in the first degree by denying billions of perfectly viable sperm the right to become cared for children in a nuclear family, similarly denies thousands of quite decent women the right to a husband. Thus, homosexuality's assault on the family is two-fold.

Of course, I'm no intolerant, hate-filled, bile-mongering homophobe, but I sense much truth in the words of the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who has called upon homosexuals to 'repent and be changed'.

I'll leave you with this mind-puncturingly logical argument: since Christianity holds that sexual relations should be restricted to a man and a woman inside marriage, aren't those who promote homosexuality and alternative relationship choices upholding their own intolerant doctrine?

And you can't argue with a Bishop can you?

The Mail's war on IVF

While inferior news sources have been wasting valuable column inches this week reporting such trivialities as a disputed election in some obscure middle-eastern state, The Daily Mail has spent the last few days pursuing a much greater agenda - the tyranny of helping barren couples have children.

Both 'Malignant' Melanie Phillips and Bel 'Looney' Mooney were wheeled out yesterday to wax polemical on the horrors of in vitro fertilisation, following a weekend of eye widening leaders revealing the shocking incompetence at the heart of Britain's IVF industry. Collectively, the Mail's elder matrons spewed an impressive 2,300 words of outspoken diatribe across two full-page articles telling worried readers just why they should be so nervous about the Godlessly futuristic baby making process.

So just why should you be so suspicious of IVF?

Well firstly, as Allison Pearson screamed only two weeks ago, the method allows selfish grannies such as Elizabeth Adeney the opportunity to bring poor infants into the world only to face a childhood of shame as the hands of their contemporaries mocking them for having an old bat for a mother. 66 year old Adeney 'thinks of no one but her blinkered self', spat Pearson after charmingly revealing that the sight of crusty, silver maned Adeney on the front page of The Mail holding her fatherless sprog made her 'shout and hurl the paper across the kitchen.'

So angry was Pearson's rhetoric that several readers complained of bile literally frothing from their newspaper into their cereal as they opened the paper over breakfast. 'I was really annoyed', said Alan from Royston. 'I'd used up the last few bits from the bottom of the packet of Bran Flakes and didn't have another box. I went to work hungry thanks to Allison Pearson.'

But although Allison's disgust with old people having children was generally dismissed as 'a bit silly even for her', she had unwittingly ignited a new Daily Mail agenda. The IVF issue was to explode in a flash of embryonic outrage only a fortnight later.

Alongside a double page spread entitled 'Ten seconds that ruined our lives', Bel Mooney managed to retain her composure long enough to tell readers that having a child 'isn't a divine right'.

Casually mentioning the horror of the white couple who were left with a brown baby after a disastrous IVF mix up, Ms Mooney concluded within four paragraphs that the Mail's recent pearl-clutching coverage of human artificial insemination had raised 'serious questions about the fertility treatment upon which so many couple [sic] pin their hopes.'

'Perilous it is', Bel continued with the gravitas of a 900 year old green Jedi master, before revealing with incredulity that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority recently claimed arrogantly that 'it's impossible to eliminate human error' in IVF processes. And, for good measure, Bel even quoted some science: 'American scientists found that IVF babies were up to 30 per cent more likely to suffer from birth defects than those conceived naturally.'

Realising she was losing hundreds of readers for every percentage mentioned, Bel exposed the dark underbelly of the debate, and why you should really be scared of IVF even if you don't understand what it is:

'Behind all these complex issues lies a more simple question: what has brought so many people to the point where they place a faith in the science of IVF that would once have been placed in God (or at least nature)?', she asked with dazzling use of rhetoric while simultaneously taking it as given that childbirth is no longer entrusted to God or Gaia.

Yes. IVF is Godlessness, pure and simple. Like a journalistic Mormon concerned by the corrupting influence of technology upon our frail but sacred human form, Bel pointed out that 'It's impossible not to worry that we have reached an unhealthy state when too many people believe they have a divine right to a child.'

This is the path to a new Gomorrah, with women running amok, working and socialising to excess, using their bodies for things other than God intended. IVF allows these 21st Century harlots to remain scandalously unchaste for far longer than the holy scriptures ever foresaw: 'Few professional women considering having children until they are well into their thirties...It's as if they are thinking that if they fail to conceive, IVF will come to the rescue.'

Adding political balance to Bel's holy argument, 'Malevolent' Mel Phillips weighed in but six pages later to ask just why, oh why, for goodness' sake, 'are taxpayers' picking up the bill for IVF?'

Unable to believe that Mooney had written an entire article criticising a medical issue without blaming everything on the Stalinist state-funded cash vacuum that is the NHS, Mel quickly elucidated readers that 'the NHS is a health service, not a happiness service', and therefore shouldn't be spending YOUR money on women too lazy to conceive naturally.

The shocking truth about IVF is that it is provided free by a 'Government that controls the purse strings', a bit like how Lenin wanted it. 'What's wrong is that...it's our money, and we should be entitled to decide how to spend it', Mel wept. Her impassioned plea to stop spending tax pounds on such frivolities as children certainly hit the mark; a recent poll shows 72% of Daily Mail readers in agreement that IVF should cease to be provided by the state. The money would almost certainly be better spent on proper things like Britain's woefully underfunded Trident project.

In case there were any readers left uncertain of Mel's message that cash should not be wasted on ridiculous socialist 'improvement' schemes, she yelled definitively: 'The era of paying central government to deliver public services such as health and education should be declared to be over.'

To allow IVF is to ignore the October revolution taking place under our noses. So blinded are we by babies, and science, and Robert Winston's moustache, that we have allowed the State to take away our faith in God and sperm.

In vitro fertilisation is a dystopian nightmare to be sure. But the last words on the matter must be left to pour forth from Melanie's mouth like spittle from a rabid hound:

"Creating potential babies in this way only to dispose of them has undoubtedly helped erode respect for human life"

Mad Mel Incurs Fellow Wracists Rath

Bright-eyed, blonde haired members of Britain's up and coming Nationalist Socialist Party (BNP) reacted with fury today as a mad Jew described them as 'odious' in a reprehensible opinion piece printed in England's third most popular newspaper.

Despite being an ardent supporter of BNP policy and spending the past eight years recruiting new members into their ranks by fearlessly and tirelessly exposing the totalitarianism of New Labour and the tyranny of multiculturalism, Melanie 'Malevolent' Phillips whipped up a storm by appearing to criticise the cuddly, overly sensitive supporters of EU legislation.

Commenters were livid at Phillipses's U-turn over important issues like immigration and the free reign given to brown terrorist hoodies, as she inexplicibly launched a vile tirade against the crusading, charismatic party she had appeared to side with for so long.


John, from London, England, expressed weariness at Mel's incessant liberal agenda with an angry flurry of apostrophe's: "Not another, the BNP are all racist's, fascist's and nazi's outburst from Melanie. These attacks on them are really becoming rather tedious" he sighed. 812 readers agreed.

D Wallace from Birmingham summarised succinctly just why the BNP is so popular with Daily Mail readers: "The reason people are flocking to the BNP is simply because they represent what the people feel, and want, not what successive governments have told, or forced them to accept." 763 readers confirmed that this was true.

Jennie from London demanded an explanation for Mel's absurd description of the BNP as 'odious', before throwing the label back at the LibLabConspiracy that have destroyed our culture: "I would think that the antics of the mainstream Parties over the last 50 years could well be described as 'odious'". 710 readers also wanted to hear Mel's justification for being so mean.

Texan Alan Preen took the pillowcase off his head long enough to write: "Do you seriously consider the BNP to be a worse choice than the lying, cheating labour rabble." 813 Mail readers found his clever rhetoric hilarious and gave his post the thumbs up.

Stephen H Print from Thailand (presumably on holiday) begged Mel not to judge his favourite party quite so unjustly: "No don't condem the BNP for standing up for Briish culture and values that this totally discredited government with an unelected leader work so determindly to destroy" 616 Mailites were similarly hurt by Mel's 'condemation'.

Gary from London, meanwhile, revealed his classical education with a quip Plato himself would have marvelled upon: "Well that's how deocracy works isn't it ?", he said smoothly, while 318 other readers were dazzled by his wit and knowledge of the little-understood laws of 'deocracy'.

Rick from Newcastle summarised the BNP's rise in popularity with the all the linguistic apptitude of an early 20th Century German political leader: "The BNP are the only party standing for Britain and British people.
The labour and the tories have sold our country out..
Where is our Referendum.
Where are our Freedoms..."
...he said, jabbing his finger at an imaginary crowd, his moustache twitching with passion. 679 other readers' taches twitched in support.

Jake, from London, along with 562 friends, had trouble seeing where the trouble was: "I see no evidence that the BNP are odious thugs", before detailing his drive home through winding country roads, "I'm ready for a lurch to the right", he belched.

Michael from Yorkshire, ENGLAND, gave Mel an impromptu history lesson: "I honestly think that the BNP is a natural part of political evolution. History...... ( from ancient Rome onwards ).... is littered with examples of the extreme measures ordinary people will go to - when they feel impotent to change anything. Watch the BNP...... it will be interesting to witness politics entering a new era. It had to happen...it may do a lot of good." 524 readers thanked Michael for sharing his knowledge, but still laughed at the word 'impotent'.

But it wasn't all a big BNP friendly, happy get together, as some ignorant 'libruls' attempted to ruin the fun with their personal brand of multicultural fanaticism.

Emma from London sneered: "Can you imagine this country being run by this bunch of cowboys? What are they going to do once they've got rid of all the non-English people?", but, thankfully, 546 Mail readers slapped her down and told her to go home.

Mark C from East Yorkshire yelled uncontrollably: "There is no room in British politics for extreme right-wing, small parties like the BNP", before being booed off stage by 468 red arrows.

Shifty sounding Dan Hollingsworth from Rickmansworth said facetiously: "To all the comenters miffed about being called racists or bigots: Really? Have you not researched your party?", but was rightfully put in his place (behind the corner shop) by 356 real Brits.

Ed from London appeared to have wandered into the wrong room, bleating: "Reading the comments here makes me feel quite uneasy. I hope the extreme-right views doesn't represent Britain as a whole. As a British/Italian Jew I would be probably in a very unstable situation with the rise of a Nazi party. I better start doing something about my brown hair and olive skin before is too late, I say."

347 Daily Mail readers agreed that, yes, he should start doing something about his tell-tale impure brown hair and distasteful olive skin, and voted his comment down for showing such arrogance in admitting he's a foreigner who came over here and took things.

Gays Steal Children From Happy Family

Children as young as five are being snatched away from loving homes and handed out like sweets to homosexual monsters, it has emerged.

In what has been described as 'a totalitarian assault upon family life and human rights', two young children were given by left-wing Edinburgh city council to a pair of decadent gays just because their heroin addicted mother was deemed 'incapable' of caring for them by politically correct social workers.

In a 'grotesque development', the grandparents of the children, who cannot be named for legal raisins, were denied the right to adoption just because they were too old, infirm and financially unstable. Inexplicably, it was decided that the gays would provide the best home for the vulnerable brother and sister, despite the availability of a number of normal, non-bent couples in the area.

Shockingly, 'some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption' despite evidence that exposure to gayness makes children up to 100% more likely to grow up thinking that boys kissing each other is acceptable.

'Mad' Melanie Phillips pointed out in her meditation on the topic that: 'The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true...children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ - or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement'.

Experts agreed that the children would indeed be far better off in a family with a junkie mother and a suicidal schizophrenic father than with a couple of flowery pooves who doubtless only want the children to use as fashion items a bit like how Paris Hilton - a gay icon - has a little dog in her bag.

Homosexual role model Richard Littlejohn, a supporter of gay rights in so far as they should be allowed houses and jobs, laid blame for the 'appaling human horror story' at the feet of the 'sadistic, Stalinist might of the social services system' before comparing the situation with the under-reported case of Madeline McCann. 'Stolen children are at the heart of both [cases] he said, before plaintively asking: 'What kind of monsters could do something like this?' You couldn't make it up.

The Dawning of a Dark Four Years for America

Barack Obama came under fire from one British newspaper today for being a 'soft' leader, not being Abraham Lincoln and for lying about being black.

Unable to fathom the ridiculous hysteria sweeping the globe on the 'historic' inauguration day of America's first black president, both 'Mad' Melanie Phillips and 'Yokel' Robin Page questioned everyone's sanity in succombing to 'Obamania'. While Mel 'The Malevolent' asked: 'Has everyone lost their marbles?', Page was left wondering whether it was in fact he that had gone insane, asking: 'Am I going round the bend?', to which several readers answered: 'Yes'.

Conceding that it was sort of cute that black Americans felt vindicated by the appointment of an African-American to the highest office in the country, Mel 'The Merciless' reminded mindlessly enamoured readers that Obama would almost certainly fail to live up to the stratospherically high expectations that people have of him. Describing him as 'a fantasy figure of hope', Phillips derided Obama's naive belief in 'the replacement of military action in defence of his nation by talking, negotiation and compromise', suggesting that such silliness would only encourage scary baddies like the Iranians to increase attacks on innocent targets like Israel.

Going on to apparently contradict herself, 'Malignant' Mel added that Obama's entire 'career has been solidly embedded in an ultra-radical tradition which believes in revolution from the grass-roots up', just like communists do. But, she said, it remained to be seen what Barack Hussein Obama's term in office might bring; 'He may indeed be constrained not just by current difficulties but by events not yet forseen. He may change his mind about a lot of things as a result [and be] hampered by inexperience and naivety'.

Meanwhile, Tory bumpkin Robin Page silenced critics who claim he doesn't deserve a place to vent his unbalanced, unresearched, woefully ignorant views on the third highest circulating national newspaper's website, by insightfully pointing out that 'Barrack [sic]...had a white mother and a black father so he's brown' not black. Sources agreed that Page's interpretation was entirely correct because that's how genetics work.

Lambasting Obama's 'politcally correct' black label as 'all-ridiculous' [sic], Page went on to compare what he calls 'obarmyness' with the popularity of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 'a liar, a spiv and a serial womaniser'. Page did, however, manage to express a degree of hope for Obama's presidency, and admitted he would be 'interested' to see Britain's first black Prime Minister before inexplicably saying 'as long as he doesn't turn out to Robert Mugabe', possibly because black leaders are usually power-mad, murderous tyrants.

Peter McKay, who cemented his reputation as a pioneering, forward-looking journalist when he described the events of August's Democratic Convention in the past tense before it had even happened, warned that Obama's fondness for quoting Abraham Lincoln put him 'in danger of overdoing it'.

McKay reminded readers that 'From the moment he began running for the presidency Obama set out to hijack Abe's legend' by doing things like taking a train to his inauguration - just like Lincoln did. Obama's shameless aping of the 16th President belies his own shortcomings, however, and McKay mocks the new President's connection with ordinary people. Unlike him, Lincoln 'was his own man' - 'He practised humility as well as mentioning the need for it. When asked about his humble start in life, he didn't make a meal of it or write books about it'.

Similarly, Obama's invocation of past Presidents and use of quotations reveals his much publicised weakness for rhetoric and oration. 'When [Lincoln] wrote the Gettysburg Address...he didn't lean on the work of predecessors or advertising jargon soundbites', McKay jeered.

David Jones rounded off the newspaper's unimpressed coverage of the day's uninteresting events, ridiculing the 'unbridled hysteria that has been building throughout Washington DC since the weekend'. Scoffing at Obama's attendance at 'yet another choreographed and hyped-up pre-inauguration event', Jones appropriated his colleague Mad Mel's ironic description of the inauguration as 'the second coming' before commenting that being part of the two million strong crowd watching in awe as Obama was sworn in, made you want 'to weep for them' rather than feel witness to history in the making.

The hard-to-please journalist added that 'eyebrows had been raised' at the £30m cost of the inauguration ceremony and subsequent events during a time of global economic difficulty. Insiders agreed that the day should really just have consisted of a small buffet with a bring-your-own booze policy and that Obama and vice-president Biden would have been better advised to make use of public transport instead of wasting money on bullet-proof limousines.

Daily Mail readers appeared to agree with the negative opinion presented by the columnists, expressing pessimism that Obama has the apples to deliver, probably because he is a brown leftie with a suspicious middle name:

'Political Indoctrination' 'caused Britain to descend into an age of barbarism', says hate cleric

A stunning polemic was delivered today by Melanie 'Mad as snakes' Phillips, who describes herself as 'progressive' and 'liberal'.

Examing the tragic case of Baby P, Mel 'The Merciless' bravely came to the brave conclusion that his apalling treatment and horrific death was not in fact the fault of his depraved and psychopathic parents as much as it was the doing of 'the so-called progressive intelligentsia'.

Laying the blame at a panoply of of perpetrators, the crazed columnist pointed a bony finger at everyone and everything from lone mothers to academic research, fixing an icy stare on 'self-regarding social commentators and corrupted academics, feminist zealots and spineless male child psychologists and psychiatrists and sociologists' along the way.

In a daring broadside against pretty much everything done by anyone with a degree in something, she battered the 'left-wing intelligentsia' with a great, spiky, metaphorical bear club for indoctrinating us all in the 'political correctness' that dared '[supply] lone mothers with benefits on the basis that they were most in need.' It goes without saying, of course, that lone mothers are far from 'most in need'. Conversely, they live it up something wonderful, according to statistics that someone in the pub told me about.

Painting an all too familiar picture of 'a shattered social landscape', Mel 'The Malevolent' described insightfully how 'Neglect is routine' in all British families nowadays, detailing objectively and honestly how 'sex with relatives or step-relatives [is] commonplace; drug abuse, crime and systematic dishonesty a way of life'. Data gathered by 'Monstrous' Mel herself, this morning, reveals that nine out of ten families does indeed indulge in neglect, incest, hard-core drugs, crime and telling lies every single day. All because of New Labour's 'doctrine that all lifestyles must be considered equal and that no one has right to pass judgment on anyone else'. It is unclear exactly what doctrine she refers to, but we're sure it's pretty awful and that Nu Liarbor did it.

The Baby P case, and that of of the two babies killed by their metally ill mother last week, 'are not aberrations', Mel 'The Malignant' tells us. The fact that both cases involved particularly and peculiarly deranged parents is not significant, neither is the fact that, thankfully, there are very few cases quite as abhorrant as these. The problem is in fact widespread and common. Sex, drugs and incest are absolutely the norm, and so is infanticide - but only Ms. Phillips dares say it.

Rounding off an astoundingly balanced and perceptive essay, backed up by a vast amount of evidence throughout, Mel 'The Malodorous' makes a final swipe at an aspect of society she had forgotton to discuss previously, but is nonetheless absolutely to blame for Baby P's death (and a lot of other bad things) somehow: multiculturalism.

Yes. It is the blood-thirsty, cowardly, superior, power-hungry 'progressive intelligentsia' again who deserve to have the blame laid entirely at their feet for 'enforcing the doctrines of multi-culturalism and nonjudgmentalism' on our fair but corrupted land, 'with the zealotry of the fanatic'. These are 'the people who really have blood on their hands' 'Misfit' Mel concludes with a seething eloquence, and multi-culturalism has its deviant part to play in the whole sickening charade.

She decides boldly to completely ignore Baby P's parents, who literally had blood on their hands after torturing, abusing, and, finally, murdering him. Compared to educated left-wing public sector workers, they're as good as innocent, says she, because it was they that created the parents in the first place.

It is metaphorical blood that stains deepest, for this liberal.

Opinonion: Multiculturalism has dealt a fatal blow to Britain

"In the name of multiculturalism, Britain has done something terrible to itself. Like a once proud King disowning his child, our nation has downplayed British cultural identity, leaving long-standing inhabitants fearful and new immigrants alienated, creating a vacuum ripe for exploitation by extremists.

Multiculturalism and its allied doctrines of human rights and anti-discrimination are acting as a kind of corrosive acid eating away at our institutions, values and national identity, like rust on an old penny-farthing.

What's more, they are also actively preventing us from defending our own country. Just look what happened when the Army said it wanted to put a 15 per cent cap on the number of recruits it takes from overseas - someone dared mention that this could be interpreted as 'discriminatory'. Madness.

Really, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Although, surely, given the gravitas of this very article, crying must be the more appropriate reaction. It surely doesn't need to be said that to defend Britain, the armed forces must reflect and share the culture and values of British society - and, obviously, foreigners do reflet or share the culture and values of British society. Why not? Well, they just don't. They weren't even born here.

This is not a matter of treating foreigners less favourably - simply that a country has to be defended by those who are, overwhelmingly, part of it and thus loyal to it. It is because they identify with their country that they are prepared to lay down their lives for it. Immigrants, even legal ones whose families have been here for generations, CLEARLY are still not part of it and therefore are disloyal. Disloyal subjects would never want to lay down their lives for queen and country, even though thousands do every day by signing up for our armed forces. So many, in fact, that some military figures feel it necessary to call for a limit. For the purposes of this essay though, signing up to the army does not mean that a person is loyal to his country. I'm not sure why exactly, but my point is that these foreigners aren't prepared to lay put their lives on the line for Britain, despite the fact that they do just that, in droves.

For sure, there have always been foreign nationals who perform exemplary duty in our armed forces and have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. But if there is no longer a critical mass of soldiers whose first loyalty is to Britain because they are not British, then that sense of a common struggle must dissipate.

Those last two paragraphs were really really difficult to write. They are probably even harder to read and understand. But I'm fairly certain there's an enormously valid point in there somewhere. If you can't understand it, that's because you're a lefty equality zealot.

Anyways, I've gathered myself now so let's attempt to shamble on. It's difficult to write when you're this outraged but you don't really know why. The important thing is that you just are.

The head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, objects to the Army's proposal on the grounds that it 'raises large issues of principle'. You bet it does: the largest is the principle of citizenship itself, at the very heart of which lies the duty to fight for one's country. It is that principle which the Equality Commission now wishes to destroy, like the Japanese destroyed Pearl Harbour.

On Planet Equality, it seems it is racist to have an Army consisting of Britons committed to defending their own country. That's because multiculturalism holds that no one culture can lay claim to be the custodian of this nation's values. Mass immigration is regarded, instead, as the means to transform this green and pleasant land into the nursery of the brotherhood of man. Pfft, how ridiculous. The brotherhood of man could only ever exist between men of the same ethnicity. That's why it's called a brotherhood; brothers are the same race. Apart from when they're of mixed race parents - but even then they're kind of the same. I think.

As a result, the country is increasingly resembling some kind of mass transit camp, in which fewer and fewer inhabitants have any permanent attachment or identification with Britain. That's why almost two-thirds of all applicants wanting to join the Army in London are now foreign nationals - hence the Army's concern. These two seemingly mutually exclusive statements - that fewer people have an attachment to our country and yet an increasing number wish to fight for that same country, are in fact not mutually exclusive. It makes sense.

This attempt to change the very nature of our country is now also affecting the most fundamental of our institutions. The Government is considering proposals to amend the 307-year-old Act of Settlement because it breaches human rights and sex discrimination law by not allowing a Catholic on the throne and by giving male heirs priority over older sisters. Of course, a law being 307 years old makes it far more respectable thatn normal, New Labour influenced laws. Rather than being outdated, long forgotton and irrelevant, it reflects Britain as it should be - old and traditional.

I could go on; indeed some columnists have. However, I think the point has been made (somewhere). Multiculuralism is a terrible thing and has destroyed British values, even though I have no evidence to support that claim. Some may say that, in fact, I have used evidence that supports the opposite of what I claim. This may be true, but I'm fairly sure it isn't. At the end of the day, the army said they don't want any more foreigners in the forces, and that MUST mean something."

Adapted from an article that orginally appeared HERE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063741/this-article-makes-no-sense