Oh, none taken. I'm not of a particularly religious bent myself. You're absolutely right though, most 'Christians' are total posers. You see dozens wearing cheap Argos crucifixes spend their weekends hunting for a 15-year-old girl to knock up in the park while getting absolutely blitzed on tonic wine and poppers--usually before stamping on the face of some poor unfortunate who tries to keep on walking after being asked if he has "Got a light, bawbag?"

Incidentally, that no-one seems to take Christianity seriously any more--including the clergy--is probably the reason why no-one sees it as a threat to the liberal (in the classical sense) order. (Archbishops advocating shariah law? Openly homosexual reverands?)

Islam is, for a significant minority, a different animal. When George "Would you like me to be the cat?" Galloway starts ranting on about violence in the Old Testament he convinces no-one. When Geert talks, you know that he actually might get the Theo van Gogh treatment and have a dagger pinned to his ritually murdered body in the middle of the street for his heathen pronouncements.

Yeah, I get rather an amusing picture of a spitfire strafing a huge tent made out of fish woven together. Eat your heart out, Dali.

Surely the South African footballer could be covered by a work permit?

It is of course important that there be exceptions (you might want to labour your policy as regards Gurkhas and Commonwealth soldiers in public, for example) but the main one Nigel has mentioned--family reunions--needs a lot of tightening. In former telegraph political editor Anthony Browne's excellent book "Do We Need Mass Immigration?" (published by CIVITAS) we see that they are in fact the biggest and most damaging contributor to extra-EU immigration to Great Britain.

Good to see him reading 'The Great European Rip-Off'! UKIP doesn't do enough to promote such excellent literature. At the UKIP Scotland meeting in Stirling recently they had some good stuff laid out, but the only book was 'Vigilance' by walking PR disaster Ashley Mote, the ex-UKIP MEP who was kicked out for being a benefit fraudster.

This is indeed a very "slick and professional" video. However, it seems overwhelmingly negative. Wouldn't it have been better to counterbalance the Nos AGAINST the EU with positive Yeses FOR UKIP? Something like:

"Say NO to unlimited immigration ... Say YES to British jobs for British workers ... and responsible work permits"

"Say NO to £40 million daily EU bill ... Say YES to lower taxes ... and losing 100,000 pages of burdensome regulations"

"Say NO to EU control of our lives ... [transition from European Union flag to Union Jack] Say YES to independence and democracy"

I don't know. Something like that?

This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind."

Cyber-high-five to anyone who gets through the whole thing.

Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?

All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us.

None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times.