The Militant Brothers have reached agreement on raising an âarmyâ of 10,000 mercenary activists who will be paid from an initial Â£250,000 war chest donated by Lord Sainsbury of Turville, acquired during his years as Chief Bacon Slicer in the family firm.
âTis a profitable business, flogging pork to the infidels, though quite how much success he will have in poaching foot soldiers from Lord Ahmedâs âarmyâ of 10,000 Muslims remains to be seen â tâwill be a terrible crisis of conscience for them â to take the pork stained shilling and join a professional and trained army campaigning against cuts in the provision of sex change operations for gender challenged Kurdish refugees, or remain within the rag, tag and tea towel battalions of Ahmedâs Halal 1st Brigade.
Sainsburyâs army is an offshoot of the âMovement for Changeâ of which we are assured:
âThe whole point of M4C is to get results. No flim-flam proposing and seconding motions that stay in a dusty draw. Oh no! M4Cers are trained in negotiating and direct action campaigning â and itâs not leftie-softy negotiating either.â
Elsewhere, the ever eloquent, but disingenuous Sue Marsh, is seeking to raise an army of:
âHundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people [â¦]Armed with their oxygen tanks, their callipers as shields, armies of the deaf, regiments of the blind. A raw intake of willing warriors.
To march on London in support of her belief that leaving the provision of transport to local authorities rather than automatically supplying the financial component to each and every disabled person irrespective of whether they are in shared accommodation with a dozen other disabled people will result in:
âAdults needing full time residential care and children in hospital [having] the basic right of mobility taken away from themâ
– giving us the impression that these children and adults will be marooned for ever in their shared house â when she does occasionally mention that local authorities will provide shared transport, invariably buried further down in the article, she neglects to mention that this is only âtheir preferenceâ â where appropriate.
For a party that was apparently committed to ending the divisions in society â they employ remarkably divisive language.
The precise sort of language that many Left wing commentators claimed resulted in the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. After the shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik expressed concern that overheated political rhetoric and violence may be related, observing, âWhen you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.â
I donât hear this divisive rhetoric from the right wing commentators. They talk of encouraging the unemployed to join their ranks, of helping the disabled to find whatever employment they may be capable of â of healing the rift between dependency and forced taxation.
Why then was the blame heaped on Republican shoulders for the rhetoric that led to Giffordâs shooting â and how long before we have a similar tragedy as these âarmiesâ of âprofessionally trainedâ sick and disabled Muslims are encouraged to ârise up and fightâ?