The two video's I placed within the article show Cameron and Clegg, blatantly inciting racial hatred in Britain with open promises which amount to a discrimination against white people with their promises of black peoples agendas that they say will promote black people into opportunities which they have each described are currently lacking, and they both promise to counter what they describe as an existing racial divide which they say makes black people victims in our society.
Clegg made the further claim that there was something inherently unfair about the police exercising powers of stop and search predominantly against black people which he described as disproportionate. i.e. They should stop more white people so it's fair.
I accuse them both of inciting racial hatred for reasons which I think are plainly obvious.
Items to note:
Gordon Brown, as far as I am aware, has not referred to the British National Party and its members in much other than a vague way when he has implied we are 'racist' and I believe (unless others know different), that he has also indicated his belief that many of its although not racist, members have simply fallen into supporting the British National Party because for want of other reason, they feel threatened in their jobs by immigration.
It is not like me to stand up for Gordon Brown but I have to point the obvious difference out between his public utterance and those of Cameron and Clegg.
Cameron has referred to the leader of the British National Party as "ghastly filth".
He has made no retraction of this statement despite he has been made aware that British National Party supporters agree fundamentally with the views expressed by their party leader Mr Nick Griffin MEP, and may equally attribute Cameron's insult to themselves.
Cameron has a big filthy mouth and if I saw him in person I would tell David Cameron that.
But now he has also proven himself to be racist and an unthinking idiot who aims for power without a care for who he upsets. In this case it happens to be white people he's picking on with his racist, bullying attitude which he doesn't try to hide.
As for Clegg, he may not have shown such clear hostility toward the British National Party but I believe he follows suit with Cameron.
After their first debate I watched Clegg walking down the steps from the stage toward the audience. You might remember this as Gordon Brown was left alone and was later castigated next day by the media for breaking the agreement made by each party leader that they would not do so.
Anyone who watches body language will understand what I mean when seeing Cameron 'beckon' back Clegg from the bottom step and seeing Clegg meekly obeying.
Of course without knowing personally, I can guess that because they are attending the same groups, adopting the same policies, and are both visibly determined together to 'make Britain a fairer society for black people', that they are in cahoots with one another, but you only have to look to see who is leading so called anti-fascist groups like UAF, to see how he is leading the Conservative party and LibDem leader with their 'race attacks' against white people.
I also note Cameron's visit to America and his audience with Obama, and his ready adoption of Saul Alinsky's plan for a Big Society, which Cameron has spoken about at length, and has admitted he has copied it.
Readers might want to note that Saul Alinsky was also a left-wing subversive.
Clearly there is a marked difference between 'activism' and 'subversion', for subversion works AGAINST the state and its people and it works against established societal norms in order to subvert them rather than to actively campaign within a democracy as an equal part of the process.
It is for Cameron to refute my claims that he is a leftwing subversive character who is playing the race card in order to incite a race war in Britain.
He doesn't need to refute that he has a big filthy mouth because that's a fact which won't go away whether he lives to be 90 or 100 for that part of his history has already written.
What I want to know is 'why' he is subverting society and why is he stoking racial tension?
I have some basis for my opinion and I think for those who are interested in keeping up here, you might want to look at America and what is currently happening under the Obama's (Saul Alinsky) administration in terms of his immigration and 'hate laws' where he opened the doors to mass immigration whilst creating hate laws that make it a criminal offense to argue with it, and is now paying the price there with mass protests.
The American people are rallying behind the Tea Party there in an effort to stop this mad man, and are being castigated by politicians and the media as 'racists'.
Yesterday, one of Cameron's candidates David Davies was referred to by his opponent as on the 'far-right', simply because he wanted to discuss immigration.
David Davies likens this to being called a 'Nazi'.
We had Gordon Brown the other day with his gaffe when referring to a lady as a 'bigot', because she asked him where all the immigrants are flocking from.
Yes, you might agree that Brown is as bad as the other two here but he didn't say that publically. He said it privately and that's the difference between him and Cameron. i.e. Cameron is intentionally saying these things publically and is intentionally trying to stir racial hatred and is intentionally subverting democracy and perhaps unintentionally or otherwise, has a big mouth to make a Big Society which he clearly intends will not include us 'white people'.
Finally, there is ample evidence of 'white people' being discriminated against in Britain.
Let me ask then for comments from David Cameron's 'black people', about what they think of Cameron's big mouth and his patronising speeches which if I were black would make my blood boil.
Surely no respectable citizen who feels he or she has made a success of their lives in Britain would say this was 'because he or she was black?
Surely if a black person thought that then their success means nothing at all.
Cameron you have some questions to answer with that big filthy mouth of yours!
Arizona's immigration laws are a 'cry of frustration'. CNN NEWS
Washington (CNN) - Arizona's controversial immigration law is a "cry of frustration" by state and local officials who need comprehensive federal immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday. In appearances on morning talk shows, Napolitano criticized the law as a hindrance to law enforcement and said only an overall approach will work. The law "puts everybody at risk" by diverting attention of police and sheriffs from higher-priority crimes, Napolitano told the CNN program "State of the Union." "There was no surprise to me that experienced individuals like the Pima County sheriff, who is the longest standing sheriff in Arizona, he is in Tucson, 100 miles from the border, has said he doesn't want this new law, he doesn't need it, and he is not going to enforce it," Napolitano said.Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal SuperRich Undermine Am