Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
I don't know what it will take to convince his supporters that Obama is not a Christian. Yes, we heard all the excuses that he was a member of Reverend Wright's so-called Christian church that really had no semblance of Christ's teaching...that was the church that preached hatred for America in which Rev. Wright was video recorded as saying, "God damn America." We won't dwell on that controversy which was not played enough back in 2008 by the main stream media, I also want to re-emphasize Obama's hatred for the American military. The two of these areas, Christians and the military, are covered as one all inclusive topic in the following editorial by USMessage Board. For those that still do not believe where Obama's denominational heart is planted you might want to read America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Obama to ban Christmas Cards on Military Bases Source link
Obama’s military command will prevent delivery of Christmas cards being sent from families to their servicemen loved ones overseas
spokesmen for The Pentagon said today. The White House claims that traditional Christmas greetings wish will upset Muslims in host countries and will have to convicted and returned to the sender. Per executive order, all overseas military mail will be monitored for references to Christmas, Jesus Christ, or pork products which are known to offend Muslims. An Army Veteran who reached out to Fox News said Pentagon leadership is “hypersensitive to anyone who says they feel like their rights are being violated.” “It’s extremely frustrating,” the soldier said. “The U.S. Military is living in fear of radical Muslims.” The soldier, who asked not to be identified because he feared being disciplined or assaulted my Muslims, said many people are furious over the censorship. “If soldiers cannot speak the name of God, let alone Christ, what are we fighting for?” he asked. “I’ve towed the company line for years but this has pushed me too far to sit quietly while personal liberties are trampled upon.” The soldier said in recent months they have been reminded that they cannot proselytize and they cannot share their faith say anything nice about Jesus or Christianity. “We are strongly discouraged from having any kind of Christian items on our desks or in our offices,” he said Texas-based Liberty Institute sent a demand letter to the White House, insisting they immediately drop this policy which allows a generic greeting but disallows references to Christmas, which is officially recognized as a national holiday under federal law. Liberty Institute’s Director of Litigation, Hyman Stratcher, responded in a statement, “Obama is once again engaging in unlawful religious discrimination. It is shameful that the military continues to censor religious speech in Christmas cards while allowing atheists,gays, and satanists to send porn,drugs,electronic cigarettes,or any other ungodly thing they want.” Imam Al-Suq Akweer of the Islamic Friendship Coalition applauded the move as a step in the right direction in the quest for improved Islamic relations. "Disbelievers are trying to draw Muslims away from the straight path".he said,"Christmas Day and associated celebrations are among the ''falsehoods'' for a Muslim to avoid.A Muslim is neither allowed to celebrate the Christmas Day nor is he allowed to congratulate them.Americans on Muslim soil must learn to abide by our customs to ensure peaceful relations. The ban will go into effect December 1st.Military personnel will be given handbooks to explain what can and cannot be sent from home.
“America is rapidly becoming a nation of mutts. Our country’s traditional character is being systematically destroyed by nihilistic “liberals,” the New World Order’s centurions whose only God is the Almighty Dollar.
The same kinds of people invented the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and applied it to the unsuspecting Russians. Now, they are trying to ram a ‘dictatorship of the minorities’ down the naïve Americans’ throats.”
“It doesn’t take very long to dumb down a nation,” agreed a former publishing CEO, a long-time advocate of better quality education in America. “After only two or three generations, you can easily produce a nation of morons.” ~ Source
In the last week of the 1990 campaign, the Clintons took out two personal loans totaling $100,000, to use in the 1990 campaign. The $100,000 notes are due on demand and have not yet been paid back. In its most recent state filings, Mr. Clinton's committee reports that it still owes the money.
A review of Mr. Clinton's personal and political finances shows that he has accumulated little personal wealth. He has spent most of his career in public service, and as Governor he earns only $35,000 a year, plus a little more than $5,000 in honorariums or speaking fees last year. As a result, he has accumlated far fewer assets than his wife, Hillary, a lawyer and senior partner in the Rose law firm in Little Rock.
Mrs. Clinton has had connections to the Stephenses, too. According to a Stephens official who asked not to be identified, Mrs. Clinton once represented them in litigation. Public records also show that her firm has represented a number of Stephens entities.
Mrs. Clinton's career has produced most of the family's wealth. She is not required to disclose her income, and Mrs. Clinton would not answer questions on the subject. But press reports in Arkansas, based on the Clintons' tax returns, said her law firm salary for 1989 was $92,000. The couple's net worth is between $350,000 and $1 million, according to Mr. Clinton's report to the Federal Election Commission, which requires only that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges. Broad Financial Support
Their holdings include bank accounts, bonds, mutual funds and investment partnerships. The largest asset is Mrs. Clinton's share of her firm's profit sharing and retirement plan, valued between $100,001 and $250,000.
Would it be safe to say that the Clintons got rich off the dumbed down Americans? You betcha!
Behind the mask of peace, brotherhood, and universal understanding, the United Nations promotes terror and tyranny in order to achieve its real objective: world government.
Few if any Americans gave thought to the fact that the September 11th attack upon our nation occurred on the date designated by the United Nations as the "International Day of Peace." Those who were aware of this tragic coincidence were probably inspired to reflect bitterly upon the uselessness of the UN as a means of achieving the peace that all decent people seek.
But behind this obvious irony lies a very telling illustration of the true nature of the United Nations. Just days prior to the terrorist attack, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was in Durban, South Africa, to attend a world conference on racism. That event drew delegates and radical activists from around the world who were united by their hatred of the United States of America. Also prominent were terrorists such as Yasser Arafat, anti-American tyrants like Cuba’s Communist ruler Fidel Castro, and representatives of other Communist and Arab despotisms who joined in the orgy of America-bashing.
The conference was hosted by South African President Thabo Mbeki, a former leader of the African National Congress (ANC), a Communist-dominated terrorist group. During the 1980s, Mbeki’s ANC comrades perfected a terrorist tactic known as "necklacing," a particularly gruesome method of executing anti-Communist blacks. ANC thugs would bind a victim’s hands behind his back with barbed wire, force him to drink gasoline, and then place gasoline-soaked tires around his neck and feet. The tires would then be set on fire, causing the victim to die a protracted, torturous death as the melting rubber slowly ate into his flesh. The victim’s agony was compounded as his killers would mock and taunt him.
Thousands of innocent black South Africans died in this fashion at the hands of Mbeki’s ANC comrades. Since coming to power, the ANC has all but destroyed South Africa, turning that once-prosperous nation into a land blighted by rampant crime, racial violence, and official corruption. Productive South Africans of all ethnic backgrounds have fled their homeland or retreated into "gated communities" to protect their families and property. Yet Annan referred to ANC-dominated South Africa as "a beacon of enlightenment and hope, not only for a troubled continent, but for the entire world." He even offered a bouquet to Mbeki’s terrorist associates: "We salute the heroic movement that you represent."
During an April 2000 summit in Havana, Annan offered similarly glowing praise for Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba. The secretary-general expressed gratitude "for the chance to visit Cuba again...." Praising the Castro regime’s supposed accomplishments in education, health, and welfare, Annan declared that Castro’s regime has "set an example we can all learn from." Annan, with his glowing praise, failed to acknowledge Castro’s use of state-sponsored terror against Cuban civilians to deter, through fear, the possibility of political opposition. The simple fact that Cuban refugees risk their lives in attempts to flee Cuba for America is testimony to the oppressive reality of Castro’s "worker’s paradise."
Clearly, Annan is very comfortable in the company of terrorists, both subversives who have seized power through terror, and tyrants who rule through terror. But this is to be expected, since UN Headquarters in New York City would more accurately be called "Terror Central."
Long Island State University Professor of Criminology Harvey Kushner, a noted terrorism analyst, points out that in much the same way that Afghanistan’s Taliban regime shelters international terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden, the UN Headquarters offers a useful staging base for terrorists of all varieties. "The UN provides cover almost the same way the Taliban does," comments Kushner. "It serves as the laboratory, the linchpin for legitimizing incendiary rhetoric" against the West in general and America in particular.
Recalling that during the September 11th attacks one television commentator reported with relief that the UN Headquarters building had not been hit, Canadian commentator Mark Steyn responded: "Well, there’s a surprise! Why would the guys who took out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon want to target the UN? The UN is dominated by their apologists, and in some cases the friends of the friends of the fellows who did this...."
Once again, just days before terrorists attacked our nation, Annan was communing with our nation’s enemies. Ten days later, though, he struck a remarkably different pose in a column in the New York Times. "The terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 aimed at one nation but wounded an entire world," he wrote. "Rarely, if ever, has the world been as united as it was on that terrible day." Annan’s abrupt change in tone was inspired by his transparent desire to capitalize on the injury done to our country by channeling public demands for justice into a UN-led crusade against terrorism.
"The international community is defined not only by what it is for, but by what it is against," declared Annan. "The United Nations must have the courage to recognize that just as there are common aims, there are common enemies. To defeat them, all nations must join forces.... The United Nations is uniquely positioned to advance this effort. It provides the forum necessary for building a universal coalition and can ensure global legitimacy for the long-term response to terrorism."
The UN long ago defined itself as an ally of terrorism and an enemy of the American way of life. But that will not prevent Annan and other advocates of world government from seeking to exploit public fear and outrage over global terrorism in their effort to create global tyranny - a UN-dominated new world order.
New World Order Vision
The phrase "new world order" came to the attention of most Americans on an earlier September 11th - to be precise, September 11, 1990, during an address by the first President George Bush to a joint session of Congress regarding Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. In that speech, after briefly describing four aims of an envisioned war against Iraq, the president made the following infamous statement: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge.... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
President Bush (the elder) reiterated the same objective in a nationwide television address on January 16, 1991: "When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders."
It should be understood that the UN’s founders were not decent, principled men like those who won our national independence and created our constitutional republic. The architects of the UN were men who advocated "peace" through world tyranny. They included State Department official Alger Hiss, who served as secretary-general of the UN’s 1945 founding conference in San Francisco. Hiss also collaborated with Soviet official V.M. Molotov in the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference, during which the UN Charter was drafted. The Hiss-Molotov team was a match made somewhere other than in heaven, since Hiss himself was a Soviet agent and a traitor to this country.
The UN founders reverently invoked by President Bush included 15 other American officials in the State and Treasury Departments who were later identified as Soviet agents. Their paymaster, Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin, endorsed the UN shortly after its founding as "a serious instrument for preservation of peace and international security."
The UN is indeed a testament to the "vision" that inspired such wretched men - and this fact should be seen as an indictment of the organization, rather than an endorsement. The UN’s founders included many figures from a New York-based private organization called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which in the words of the late Washington Post ombudsman Richard Hardwood is "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." The CFR, which has dominated the Executive Branch of our federal government for decades, was created by globalists following the Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations Covenant following World War I. In 1939, two years before Pearl Harbor thrust America into World War II, the CFR began laying the groundwork for the UN, which, like the League of Nations, was intended to be a framework for world government.
Knowing the background of the United Nations is essential to understanding the true threat the organization represents. While the UN is a haven for foreign thugs, tyrants, and terrorists, it is inaccurate to look upon the organization as a foreign entity seeking to invade and conquer the United States. Instead, the UN should be viewed as a vehicle through which corrupt, power-seeking elites in this country and elsewhere intend to acquire power over the entire world. The CFR is the most visible part of this international Power Elite, and by studying the published materials and public actions of the CFR we can understand the tactics that are being used to undermine our national sovereignty.
In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, diplomat and academic Richard Gardner pointed out that while "instant world government" may be impossible to achieve, it would be possible to build "‘the house of world order’ … from the bottom up rather than the top down." According to Gardner, "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
In the decades since Gardner published his essay, our nation’s leaders have followed his prescription by entangling us in an ever-growing web of international treaties, conventions, and organizations. At the same time, the UN has extended its reach to include such issues as environmental protection, education, child welfare, law enforcement, national and civilian disarmament, even religion. And beginning in the early 1990s, U.S. involvement in UN "peacekeeping" missions has radically expanded, with thousands of American servicemen currently deployed under UN authority in Korea, the Balkans, and elsewhere.
Shocking Us into World Government
The method described by Gardner is sometimes called "patient gradualism." By slowly sapping our country’s sovereignty, globalists can achieve the objective of empowering the UN to act as a world government without attracting a great deal of public opposition. But there is an alternative approach: Using sudden crises, such as wars, disasters, terrorism, or similar threats, to scare the public into accepting a new world order.
In 1962, CFR member Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. This document, which was commissioned and paid for by the U.S. State Department, outlines a global political system in which the UN has the means to impose its will upon the entire world. While the report acknowledges that creation of such a new world order may take decades or more to build, it also points out that there is "an alternative road" that could bring about results much more quickly
The alternative approach to world government "relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose," wrote Bloomfield. "According to this version, the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."
America has never undergone a shock as sudden, nasty, or traumatic as the attack of September 11th - and the CFR, like UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, quickly moved to capitalize upon the atrocity. Three days after the attack, the Washington Program for the Council on Foreign Relations convened a meeting in Washington organized around the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. The Commission, which was a joint creation of former President Bill Clinton (CFR) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (CFR), was co-chaired by former senators Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR). Given the commission’s origins it should come as no surprise that it insisted that the terrorist attack on our nation is an illustration of the need for a "new world order."
"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since - and that is a new world order," declared Hart. In fact, the phrase, which has been used by globalists for decades to describe a UN-dominated world government, was used on numerous occasions by the first President Bush (see page 10).
In an editorial published the day after the terrorist attacks, Beijing’s government-line China Daily newspaper indicated that the Communist Chinese regime is on the same page as the CFR. The attack upon America, declared the editorial, "makes it more urgent that the international community move to wage all-out war on terrorism by, in the final analysis, establishing a new world order that can ensure lasting peace." And indeed, one topic discussed during the CFR’s post-attack forum in Washington was for closer cooperation with "some of these countries we have … held at arm’s length," including Russia, Communist China, Syria, and other regimes that sponsor anti-American terrorism.
Many other prominent figures have insisted that the United States must surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations in order to protect its citizens from terrorism. Writing in the September 24th New York Times, Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, declared that only by abandoning our national independence can we prevent a terrorist attack involving biological or nuclear weapons. According to Wright, "the extreme devotion of … conservatives to national sovereignty" has thwarted UN efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, since those efforts require "giving the world more control over your own behavior."
"Clinging to American sovereignty at all costs isn’t just wrong. It’s impossible," contends Wright. "If governments don’t respond with new forms of international organization, civilization as we’ve come to know it could truly be over. So the question isn’t whether to surrender national sovereignty. The question is how - carefully or systematically, or chaotically and catastrophically?"
Cora Weiss (CFR), head of the UN-connected Hague Appeal for Peace, also maintains that the terrorist strike must result in new efforts to empower the UN. "We urge the United States to support the international criminal court, to respect and work with and through the United Nations, especially the anti-terrorism conventions which we have so far refused to join," stated Weiss. And Lawrence J. Korb, director of studies at the CFR, urged that, in the wake of the attack, the United States "work cooperatively, not unilaterally, on areas like global warming, arms control, and the international criminal court."
This is just a small sample of the calls for UN leadership in the fight against terrorism - and the pressure campaign appears to be paying off. According to a September 22nd Associated Press report, an opinion poll taken after the September 11th terrorist attack found that "nine of 10 Americans want the United Nations to play a major role in pulling countries together to fight against terrorism...."
From Terror to Tyranny
From the globalists’ perspective, a UN-administered world government offers America’s only hope for peace and security. As we’ve seen, turning to the UN for help in battling terrorism makes about as much sense as enlisting the Mafia to fight organized crime. But there is another important question to consider: What kind of people would seek the power to control the world?
In his September 20th address to the nation, President Bush assailed Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s international terror network, as a global menace: "[I]ts goal is remaking the world - and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." While the Power Elite behind the UN does not necessarily share bin Laden’s vision of a new world, it unmistakably seeks to remake the world through force - in this case, a world government that would be free of the checks and balances written into our constitutional system.
The fundamental principle of our constitutional system is that individual rights come from God. To protect those rights, governments are given specific and limited powers that are exercised by officials who are accountable to the governed. To create such a political system, our Founding Fathers recognized the need to withdraw from a globe-spanning empire. They later wrote a Constitution that specifically enumerated the powers of government, and by listing those powers the Framers limited them.
Under the UN’s concept of government, it is individual "rights," rather than government powers, that are enumerated. This means that those "rights" are actually government-granted privileges that can be revoked at any time. In Article 29 of the UN’s "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" we read that none of the "rights" supposedly granted therein can be used in a fashion "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Under the UN’s formula, the powers of government are completely unaccountable and can be expanded at whim - and individual "rights" are just as easily dispensed with.
The UN’s founding documents offer a formula for total government on a planetary scale which, if implemented, would lead to what Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, calls "democide" - systematic mass-murder by governments. In his study Death by Government, Rummel documented that during the 20th century nearly 170,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments. Governments exist to protect their subjects from the violence of the lawless. Nevertheless, observes Rummel, the uncomfortable truth about governments is "that some of them murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute power reigns."
Absolute power is the objective of every criminal, terrorist, or tyrant - and it is the goal of the globalists behind the UN. If they obtain what they seek, the result would be a reign of terror beyond our imagination. This message must be sent loud and clear to all who cherish human freedom: The UN is not your friend.
__________________________________
Pay attention to the following...then tell me how free you are.
It never ceases to amaze me how it is that some politicians can avoid jail sentences for violating laws that anyone of us would be put behind bars if caught for the same or similar crimes. Now Hillary Clinton has been caught numerous times and yet she is treated as if the laws she has violated were minor indiscretions punishable by a slap on the wrists. Why, I can recall Hillary's blatant disregard for immigration laws where she and Senator Ted Kennedy openly aided and abetted illegal aliens to circumvent laws that are punishable by fines and long jail terms yet no one seems to hold her accountable. Why is that? Well what caught my eye this morning was the following headline, "Hillary 2.0"... Now I didn't think of it as a 2nd semester credit but rather a strike as in baseball. The author, Thomas Sowell, whom I admire immensely, reminds us of Hillary (and husband Bill) at an earlier time when Hillary was enjoying her first semester as First Lady stonewalling the Congress and the American people over documents not submitted...like the grade school excuse, she will use the, 'the dog ate my homework' way out or talk in circles until the allotted time has run out...any way you look at it, she gets off scot free. But maybe time is running out on Hillary because we have a new way of keeping score. My prediction is, when Thomas Sowell pens 'Hillary 3.0' it's three strikes and you're out...hopefully she'll be sent to the bull-pen* and not the dugout. ~ Norman E. Hooben *As in penitentiary Hillary 2.0 by Thomas Sowell
Many
people may share Senator Bernie Sanders’ complaint that he was tired of hearing
about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.But the
controversy is about issues far bigger than e-mails.
Thomas Sowell
One issue is the utter
disaster created by the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya, carried
out by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
An
even bigger issue is whether high officials of government can ignore the law
and refuse to produce evidence when it is subpoenaed. If they can, then the
whole separation of powers — the checks and balances in the Constitution —
gives way to arbitrary government by corrupt officials who are accountable to
no one. This
is not the first time Hillary Clinton has defied the law to cover up what she
had done. When Bill Clinton was president, back in the 1990s, both he and
Hillary developed the strategy of responding to charges of illegal actions on
their part by stalling and stonewalling when either courts or Congress tried to
get them to produce documents related to these charges. Hillary
claimed then, as now, that key documents had disappeared. Her more recent claim
that many of her e-mails had been deleted was just Hillary 2.0. Only after
three years of stalling and stonewalling on her part has the fact finally come
out this year that those e-mails could be recovered, and now have been. By
this time, however, Hillary and her supporters used the same tactics that both
Clintons used back in the 1990s — namely, saying that this was old news, stuff
that had already been investigated too long, that it was time to “move on.” That
was Hillary 1.0. More recently Hillary 2.0 said, melodramatically, “What
difference, at this point, does it make?” One
of the things that the former Secretary of State was now trying to cover up was
the utter disaster of the Obama administration’s foreign policy that she
carried out in Libya. Having
intervened in Libya to help overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi, who
was no threat to America’s interests in the Middle East, the Obama
administration was confronted with the fact that Qaddafi’s ouster simply threw
the country into such chaos that Islamic terrorists were now able to operate
freely in Libya. Just
how freely was shown in September 2012, when terrorists stormed the compound in
Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was
staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him. Moreover,
the terrorists did not even have to go into hiding afterwards, and at least one
of them was interviewed by journalists. That’s how chaotic Libya had become. Meanwhile,
there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Barack Obama
was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated Al Qaeda and
suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East. Obviously
the truth about this attack could have totally undermined the image that Obama
was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the
White House. So a lie was concocted instead. The
lie was that the attack was not by terrorists — who supposedly had been
suppressed by Obama — but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an
American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control. Now
that Hillary Clinton’s e-mails have finally been recovered and revealed, after
three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed explicitly that she knew
from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was
not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation. Nevertheless,
Hillary 2.0, along with President Obama and national security advisor Susan
Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video,
not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya, thanks to
the policy that got rid of the Qaddafi government. Yet
that key fact was treated by the media as old news, and what was exciting now
was how well Hillary 2.0 outperformed the Congressional committee on
television. If the corruption and undermining of the American system of
Constitutional government eventually costs us our freedom, will the media say,
“What difference does it make now?”
New migrants to Scotland are set to outstrip the number of babies born
within the country by nine to one over the next ten years, according to new
figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Overall, the UK’s
population is expected to grow by nearly 10 million over the next 25 years,
with the majority of new arrivals settling in England. However, the estimates
are based on figures recorded before the migrant crisis, and are therefore
likely to be a gross underestimate. However, the amount of new faces predicted to arrive falls well short of the Scottish Government's previous target, which Ministers said was needed to help care for the increasingly elderly population. ~ The Herald Scotland
For the UK as a whole, the ONS has estimated that the population will grow by 9.7 million
over the next 25 years, from an estimated 64.6 million in mid-2014 to 74.3
million in mid-2039. 51 percent of the assumed increase comes from net
migration, whereas the rest is expected to come from births within the country.
“Because immigration is concentrated at young adult ages, the assumed level
of future net migration has a more immediate effect on the projected number of
women of childbearing age and hence the projected number of births,” the ONS
said.
Focussing in on Scotland, the ONS has suggest that around 14,000 people
will arrive in Scotland per year for the next decade, two thirds of whom will
come from outside the UK. That equates to nine new arrivals to the country for
every baby born in Scotland.
The figure actually falls below the Scottish government’s target of
attracting 25,000 newcomers each year, and represents a downgrade on previous
population projections, Herald Scotland has reported.
However, the figures may be a gross underestimate. According to the ONS,
the projections are “based on the population as of 30 June 2014”, well before
Europe’s current migrant crisis got underway. They also only take into account
official migration statistics, but do not appear to include any provision for
illegal migration, which is notoriously difficult to quantify.
Overall, they have estimated that the UK will experience a population
increase of 14 percent by 2039, placing us behind just three EU countries:
Sweden and Belgium, which are projected to realise a 21 and 23 percent
population growth respectively in the same period, and Luxembourg, which is
expected to see a whopping 67 percent growth from half a million people in 2014
to 900,000 in 2039.
But the ONS expects that the European Union as a whole will see just a three percent rise
in total by 2039, and for Germany it has projected that the population will fall
by three percent in the same period, from 80.7 million in 2014 to 78.1 in 2039.
Yet Germany is on track to receive in the region of one million people this year alone, representing a 1.2 percent
population increase in just one year.
The ONS itself has admitted to scaling down projections to give a more
conservative estimate, by assuming that net migration will run at 198,000 a
year over the 25 years, well below the current rate of 330,000 a year. In order
to achieve that projection, it has assumed net migration will fall to 196,000
by 2020, the year David Cameron has promised to get the figure under 100,000.
Guy Goodwin, director of social and analysis at ONS, argued that his
organisation needed to err on the side of caution, saying: “There is a risk
that if we take the latest figures and project those forward we get figures
that prove to be way out. We always look at longer term trends.”
However, even the ONS’s official projection is cause for concern as
services already feel the
strain of so many new arrivals. Lord Green of Deddington, chairman
of Migration Watch UK, said: “These projections confirm that our population
will increase by more than twice the population of Birmingham in the next five
years.
“The prospect of nearly 10 million in 25 years underlines the huge impact
on housing and public services, unless the government succeeds in bringing net
migration right down.”
_________________________________
PS: American politicians and voters have no understanding of the above commentary...hopefully the first casualty will be someone of note...
