Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Shame On Biden--He's A Skinflint

For all his puffery, Joe Biden shows that his real attitude when the camera is not on, like when he files his tax returns.  The galling omission is the low amount of contributions to charity, less than 1.5% of his income. That means is he was a normal worker, he would have contributed less than $1000 toward a charity. That is abaismal.

However, Biden makes us really upset when we see that in 1999, he gave a paltry $120! No wonder he thinks getting rid of charitable deductions is no big deal! If you want to read the entire report it is at:

Obviously, this year he is giving more but it seems to be a Democratic trait not to give to charity.  Study after study has shown that Republicans and Conservatives give more to charities than do Democrats and Liberals/Progressives.  It must be that they believe that government will take care of us and that they are unwilling to part with any of their money.

We have a President and Vice President who have increased their contributions over the past years. Is this part of being hammered by the press or have they become charitable? We would bet on the former.

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom

WASHINGTON (AP) — For Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, this year's tax return looks almost identical to last year's.
Returns for 2011 released by the White House show the Bidens paid $87,900 in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of $379,035. Their income was $143 below their 2010 return, but their tax bill was $1,274 higher. In both cases, the effective tax rate was just over 23 percent.
On the latest return, the Bidens listed $5,540 in donations to charity.
Most of the couple's income came from the vice president's salary of $225,521 and Mrs. Biden's wages of just over $82,000 for teaching at Northern Virginia Community College.

Obama Pays ONLY20% of His Income

It is easy to say that others should pay more tax, when it will not effect you. That is the way the Obama's roll.  Asking the millionaires to pay more taxes would look less hypocritical if you had to pay. For example, when Buffet says so, he has credibility as it will increase his taxes. However, as we see in the following post, the "dictator" did not earn enough to have the honor of increasing their annual contribution to the budget.

There is one bright spot in the return. The Obama's did increase their charitable contributions. We congratulate them. If only their Vice President would do the same!

So when the President wants to dictate that others pay more in taxes, why does he not lead by example. Why did he not pay an additional $50,000 (or $70,000 or $100,000) in taxes? Would that not show the rest of the country that he was a leader?  Besides, he gets free room and board, free air and ground travel, free protection and only spends money on occasional items. He has the best deal ever!  So having a few less dollars would really send a great message and it would not really hurt him.

So that is our opinion--what is yours?

Conservative Tom

President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid a 20.5 percent federal tax rate on $789,674 in adjusted gross income for 2011, according to tax returns released today by the White House.
The Obamas’ income dropped from $1.7 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009. Obama, who earns a $400,000 annual salary as president, received most of the rest of his 2011 income from sales of his books.
Because they earned less than $1 million in 2011, the Obamas wouldn’t be subject to the Buffett rule, the proposed minimum tax on high earners the president has been pushing for in his re-election campaign.
“Under the president’s own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a blog post today.
The federal tax filing deadline this year is April 17.
Vice President Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill, reported paying $87,900 in taxes on $379,035 in adjusted gross income for a 23.2 percent rate. The White House also released their returns today.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, released an estimated 2011 tax return earlier this year. His final 2011 return will be released when it is filed, spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an e-mail.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Green Technology Another Obama Failure

Green ideas are great, however they are not anywhere near providing the amount of energy this country needs today or anytime in the near future. Sure we would like to see the entire country on non-oil, but that is not going to be possible.  Oil is a good fuel, easily transported and reliable. No other fuel is as good.  

However, we are far from being a "green zombie" who thinks we must get off oil tomorrow. We are realistic. Someday we will run out of oil. We need other sources and we should use those natural resources that we have. We would like to have a windmill on our house, however, we doubt our neighbors would appreciate it. Ocean tides and solar should also be harnessed. Why can't cars and trucks  be powered by little nuclear plants?  Hey, if Iran can have a nuke plant, why can't we?

When the President decides that Green is the only he is going to support,we get the multiple failures on the scale of Solyndra and others.  Government cannot dictate winners and losers. It cannot even deliver the mail profitably.

Should the Feds want to encourage development of these green technologies, why not give prizes for the successful development of them.  We would suggest a 50 million dollar prize for the first group to create a profitable.... --you complete the sentence. Let entrepreneurs and discoverers find the solution. They will, that is part of the American spirit, American exceptionalism.  Oh, we forget, Obama does not believe in that! He would rather dump millions/billions on friends who supported his election!  He is such a poor leader.

So as with the rest of his half baked ideas, green energy/technology will not work because he thinks government is the solution when it has never created anything but debt, heartache and moral decay.

Conservative Tom

Obama’s Green Ponzi Scheme

April 11, 2012 by  
Obama’s Green Ponzi Scheme
In March, President Barack Obama went on a two-day, four-state energy tour, proclaiming the benefits of clean energy and the evils of petroleum.
Mitt Romney has a chance at beating President Barack Obama in the November election. Much depends on whether America will swallow Obama’s Green platform.
Obama’s renewable energy plans are as much a flight of fancy as GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s idea to build moon bases. The difference is that Gingrich got caught up in a daydream. Obama’s plans are for nothing less than control over America’s future.
Last month, Obama went on a two-day, four-State energy tour, proclaiming the benefits of clean energy and the evils of petroleum. He said that the Republican candidates in the GOP primary are either misguided or simply ignorant ­Luddites.
Obama joked: “Lately we’ve heard a lot of politicians, a lot of folks who are running for a certain office — they shall go unnamed — they dismiss wind power.  They dismiss solar power.”
While the President argues that investments in green energy will ease the pain at the pump and even rebuild America, there just isn’t any evidence to support his view.
Consider this from Robert Bryce’s 2010 book Power Hungry: The Myths Of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels Of the Future:
Oil is not a perfect fuel. There is no such thing. But oil is — in nearly every case — greener than any of the alternative energy forms that might replace it. No matter whether the replacement is ethanol from corn, biomass — such as wood, straw, or dung — or biofuels made from palm oil or other feedstocks, the conclusion is apparent: Oil (and if you can get it, natural gas) simply has no peers. Oil provides consumers with both high energy density and high power density. It burns cleanly. It’s easily handled at atmospheric temperature and pressure, and the number of uses for it are [sic] essentially limitless.
The crude truth from experts doesn’t deter Obama. On March 22, at the end of his energy tour, Obama said:
The point is, there will always be cynics and naysayers who just want to keep on doing the same things the same way that we’ve always done them. We’ve got a choice. … We can keep developing new energy and new technology that uses less oil, or we can listen to these folks who actually believe that the only thing we can do is drill our way out of this problem.
Obama’s latest directive seems more about getting power for himself than it does about generating power for the Nation.
Recently, syndicated columnist and noted economist Lawrence Kudlow pointed out the flaws in Obama’s mantra on energy:
As Ronald Reagan famously said, “There you go again.”
Of course, Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for launching false attacks during a debate. And that line was so effective, it not only helped Reagan win the debate, but a presidential election that would change American history.
But “there you go again” can apply equally to President Obama. Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.
Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.
What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable… So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms.
Obama’s Con Game
I trust that most Americans know the difference between a pipeline and a pipe dream. We tend to recognize con artists, regardless of the magic in the elixir they are selling. Well, most — but not all — of us do.
That’s good news for Obama, who seems more like Bernie Madoff than like Reagan.
Remember Madoff? He ran a giant Ponzi scheme that cost his investors $18 billion. His fraud was perpetrated on thousands of people, including his closest friends. They all believed the money mogul could deliver double-digit returns regardless of recessions and bear markets.
Why did such intelligent people trust Madoff? Because they desperately wanted to believe it to be true.
Madoff’s Ponzi scheme tanked only after he couldn’t get enough new investors to throw their money in to finance his hustle.
Madoff was a greedy crook who used his friends and associates. That’s prima facie. What was shocking is that so many ignored the adage: “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Four years after Madoff’s sentencing, a much bigger con is being perpetrated. It garners more support each passing month, and it comes from the man most Americans are taught to trust: their President.
Unlike Madoff, Obama is not interested in scamming a few thousand Americans out of a few billion dollars. He has far bigger ambitions. He wants another four years in office to change America into what he has always envisioned: a liberal society that will march lockstep to the orders dictated by Washington.
Obama has a few problems to overcome before he can begin his second term, most notably high unemployment and high energy prices.
Yet Obama has come up with a way for one stone to kill three birds. He promises that investing in clean, renewable energy will create millions of jobs and make America energy independent. The icing on the cake is that it will even save the planet.
Even for men like Obama, miracles don’t come cheaply; so expect the price tag on clean, yet un-proven, energy to reach hundreds of billions of dollars.
There’s just one problem: Affordable green energy is at least a couple of decades into our future. Perhaps our President thinks this is a small price to keep him in the Oval Office.
What loyal Democrats don’t understand is that the Greens are making fake promises that could impose a dark future on a Nation that is rich in fossil fuels.
America has real problems, but energy isn’t near the top of the list. Or at least it wouldn’t be if America’s leaders would agree to set wildcatters free off our coastal shores and in Alaska and let them tap into the bonanza of petroleum that can be discovered, pumped and transported throughout the United States.
Yet for some reason — personal, religious or political — Obama is doing everything he can to arrest a renaissance in petroleum. If anything, his plans will make America more dependent on Islamic oil.
Already, European nations are scaling back spending on renewable energy projects. But not Obama.
In a March 26 post on, Renee Nal wrote:
The Obama administration has already spent billions on “green energy” companies, with most of them resulting in bankruptcy and massive layoffs. His Green Agenda is not working and he wants even more. For Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, “Programs for advanced research along with energy efficiency and renewable energy account for the biggest percentage increase in spending.”
Don’t Shoot The Messenger
I write at the request of Bob Livingston. Sometimes, commenters claim I am a mouthpiece for Big Oil. My education and background is in petroleum and journalism. Yet I have never received so much as a dime from any oil company, big or small. At the moment, I don’t even own petroleum stocks. I started off as a cub reporter more than three decades ago, and I have had the good fortune to have publishers like Livingston who let me write the truth as I see it.
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

Race Idiots Like Tyson Will Start Race Riot

If anyone ever wondered if Tyson was smart or not, his latest statements on the Trayvon Martin Case should be enough to prove to you that he is not worth the time to chew off his ear!

The fastest way to prove you are an idiot is to open your mouth and talk and that is exactly what Tyson did. However, it is worse that that. We predict that we will see no one condemning his tirade.  It will be either ignored or given silent approval. No one from the "Race Baiter Society" will say that it was the wrong thing to say.  Holder will not say "we can't have that kind of talk." Obama will be deathly silent.

The outcome of this entire tragedy is that we will see more and more events like the Martin-Zimmerman case where a white person "attacks" a black person. By mid-summer or early fall, the tension in this country between the races will be so thick that you will be able to cut it with a knife. Then, the planned explosion will occur. Is this the reason for the government buying all that ammo?  We think so.

We hate being so pessimistic but with the President's performance and his star project (ObamaCare) potentially being struck down by the Supreme Court, Obama has to do something spectacular. This would be. Could it be big enough to call off the elections or are we just crazy loons?

Tell us. Become a "follower" and post your comments!

Conservative Tom


Mike Tyson: Its a Disgrace George Zimmerman Hasnt Been Shot Yet
Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson said he thinks it’s a “disgrace” George Zimmerman “hasn’t been shot yet“ or ”dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away.”
Tyson made the comments during an interview with Yahoo News published Wednesday. Asked to sound off on the Trayvon Martin case, he said: “I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened. But it’s just so widespread and overt what happened.”
Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder late Wednesday in the shooting of the unarmed Florida teen.
Yahoo News has Tyson’s full comments:
“My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn’t follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, ‘Stop following the kid.’ That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened. But it’s just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It’s a majority versus a minority. That’s the way God planned it. He didn’t want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don’t, it’s gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that’s not the case, he was killed in vain, and we’re just waiting for it to happen to our children. He’ll have gotten away with impunity. It‘s a disgrace that man hasn’t been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That’s the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It‘s a disgrace that man hasn’t been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested–the fact that he hasn’t been shot yet is a disgrace. That’s how I feel personally about it.” [Emphasis added]
Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992 and served three years in prison.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Allen West For President

It must be a pretty scary proposition debating a Representative who also is a combat veteran known not for taking any prisoners! No wonder Obama, who would rather hide behind women, will not debate Allen West. Obama has no command of the issues when you compare him with West, nor does he have the belief system that backs up the Florida Tea Party supporter. West would take him apart, spit him out and make the President look like a school girl.

We have been very impressed with West as you can tell.  Would he make a good Vice President if selected, you can bet on it. Would the President have to be very confident of himself to pick someone who is so good at speaking? Sure would.  We need more straight talking, no BS patriots who will tell it like it is and forget the politics of the issues.

If West would run for President in 2016, that would be super!

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom


Rep. Allen West Says 80 House Democrats Are Communist Party members, and Obamas Too Scared to Meet With Him
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) gave a characteristically energetic speech at a town hall event Tuesday evening, where he said he’s “heard” that 80 U.S. Representatives are Communist Party members.
Without identifying the 80 in question, West went on to attack President Obama as being too “scared” to have a public debate with him.  The president was in Florida at the time, attending campaign events and speaking on the economy.
The Palm Beach Post reported West’s statements:
West said Obama was “scared” to have a discussion with him. He later said “he’s heard” up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn’t name names.
‘I really wish that, standing here before you, was Allen West and President Obama,’ West said. ‘We could have a simple discussion. But that ain’t ever gonna happen.’
‘Why not?’ an audience member asked.
‘Cuz he was too scared!’ West responded in a mocking voice.
A Tea Party favorite, Allen West is known for his fiery language.  He is well-remembered for telling President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to take their message of economic dependency and enslaving the entrepreneurial will of the American people “the hell out of the United States America” back in January.
West’s political opponent Patrick Murphy responded: “The bottom line is, Allen West is trying to make it in the press with comments that don’t even make sense…He’s trying to make headlines, get a rise out of people and not get anything done.”

Egyptian Army General Enters Egypt President Race

It appears as if the Egyptian Army is concerned with the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of the government. In fact, it is so concerned that one of their own is now a candidate for President.  What does that mean?  As you will read in the following article, it means that the Army is uncomfortable with the changes that the Brotherhood may impose upon the country when it gets total control.  If the Army is uncomfortable, shouldn't we be scared to death?

Of course, the dictator and his minions in the White House, think all is rosy. Are they dumb, stupid, ignoramuses, or planning something for us? We believe the latter.  What could it be?  We do not know, however, the President For Life seems to love the Islamists and despise others like Israel. Is he trying to make this country Muslim? He does seem to favor that group over all other religions?  

So what do you think, we have told you what we see going on.  

Conservative Tom

Egyptian Outlook Grows More Desperate

Jonathan S. Tobin - Commentray Magazine,  April 9th, 2012

While the Obama administration appears to be convincing itself that there’s nothing wrong with the Muslim Brotherhood acquiring a monopoly on power in Egypt, it looks as if that country’s military is panicking about the prospect. Though the Egyptian presidential race–in which the Brotherhood’s candidate and one from an even more extreme Islamist party are the favorites–may be in a state of flux, the decision of a former key member of the army leadershipto enter the race may be a sign the generals are far from confident about what may be about to happen in Cairo.
The entry of Omar Suleiman, who served as head of military intelligence during the regime of Hosni Mubarak, into Egypt’s presidential sweepstakes adds one more element of uncertainty in a situation that may be about to unravel. Suleiman, who reportedly is still close with the army’s ruling council, is a much-hated figure among both secular liberals and the Islamists for his role in suppressing dissent under the Mubarak dictatorship. Even though observers give him little chance of winning, the decision of the army to have one of their own get into the race may show just how scared they are of the Brotherhood and its allies imposing its beliefs on the country. The fact that President Obama isn’t scared too may be even more frightening to those Egyptians wondering what their fate will be once the Brotherhood assumes control of the presidency as well as the parliament and the constituent assembly writing a new constitution.
As Eric Trager writes in The New Republic, the Brotherhood’s Washington offensive has convinced many in Washington that there is nothing to fear from their drive to obtain absolute power in Cairo. But for the military, which seemed for a while to be confident it could go on governing Egypt in partnership with the Brotherhood without allowing the latter to enact fundamental changes in society, the group’s behavior in recent months is alarming. Though it has presented a smiling face of tolerance to American journalists, as Trager points out, there has been no alteration of their ideology or of their determination to transform Egypt into a theocracy.
As for Suleiman, he can expect especially rough treatment from the Brotherhood if he actually gets on the ballot for the May election. As the Associated Press pointed out, the Islamists were quick to brand him not so much as the official torturer of the Mubarak era but as the man whose task it was to manage the country’s relationships with the United States and Israel. The Brotherhood’s mocking welcome to the Suleiman candidacy was to post a picture of him in which he is posed against the backdrop of an Israeli flag. Those administration officials confident that a Brotherhood-run Egypt will keep the peace treaty with Israel or remain an ally of the United States (for which they receive more than $1 billion in annual U.S. aid) may eventually have a lot of explaining to do.

Islam's Marriage Inequality--Where is NOW?

For all of those who still believe that Sharia Law frees women, please read the following first person article from England and decide if this is the way  females in the US should be treated. We do not think you will feel the same way after reading.

But, where is the National Organization of Women (NOW)? Why are they not at the forefront of protests against Sharia? Why are they not supporting laws that ban the use of Sharia Courts? The answer is that NOW is a left leaning political organization that does NOT have the best interests of American Women in mind. They are blinded by ideology and  would never accept any support from any conservative person or organization. 

This is truly a shame on the organization for if it really had the best interests of women, it would take support from whomever and where ever they could get it. Anyone who supports NOW and any other organization that does not stand up for females should end their financial aid and place it with those who will do the right thing.

Conservative Tom

Sex and Sharia: Muslim women punished for failed marriages

Charlotte Rachael Proudman - Notebook - A selection of Independent views,  April 2nd, 2012

Today I received another telephone call from a young Muslim woman, Nasrin, who pleaded with me to help her obtain an Islamic divorce. After fleeing a forced marriage characterised by rape and physical violence, Nasrin applied for an Islamic divorce from a Sharia council; that was almost 10 years ago now. Despite countless emails, letters and telephone calls to the Sharia council as well as joint mediation and reconciliation meetings, the Sharia council refuse to provide Nasrin with an Islamic divorce. Why? Because of Nasrin’s sex. An Imam at the Sharia council told Nasrin that her gender prevents her from unilaterally divorcing her husband, instead the Imam told her to return to her husband, perform her wifely duties and maintain the abusive marriage that she was forced into.
Having represented Muslim women pro bono at Sharia law bodies across the UK to obtain Islamic divorces, I am all too aware of the gender discriminatory experience many Muslim women suffer at some Sharia councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (‘Sharia law bodies’). Unfortunately their experiences have not been highlighted by the media. Instead some Sharia law bodies have been misrepresented by the media as being transparent, voluntary and operating in accordance with human rights and equality legislation. This is not the case.
Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law. Having observed Sharia law bodies ruling on legal disputes it is all too apparent that they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation. For instance, the cost of an Islamic divorce is £400 for a woman compared to £200 for a man at the Islamic Sharia Councilin East London; this is an example of blatant gender discrimination which is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.
With over 85 Sharia law bodies operating in the UK, the majority of which charge vulnerable and impoverished Muslim women astronomical fees, Sharia law bodies have become successful and lucrative businesses. For instance the Islamic Sharia Council rules on over 500 Islamic divorces per annum at a cost of £400 for every woman applicant, equating to an annual turnover of £200,000 for Islamic divorces only. If we consider the additional legal disputes they rule upon it is likely some Sharia law bodies have an annual turnover of over £500,000. The majority of women I represent can barely afford a £15 weekly shop let alone £400 for an Islamic divorce. These destitute women have been forced to pawn their jewellery and take out loans from dangerous loan sharks in order to pay for Islamic divorces that are not even guaranteed and ultimately to fund a service that is pricing women out of the Sharia law market.
Diana Nammi, founder of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation explained that “Sharia law bodies are money-spinning businesses because they afford men more rights than women unlike UK law which is underpinned by a fundamental principle of ‘equality for all’. In most cases women do not receive any practical advice or assistance to help them exit abusive marriages, and instead face further discrimination perpetrated by Sharia ‘judges’”.
According to Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE, partner of Dawson Cornwell a leading family law solicitors firm, “women are forced to apply for Islamic divorces from Sharia law bodies to end their marriages unlike men who are in a position of power as they only have to pronounce talaq (divorce) three times to end their marriages”. However, this is not a quick process, it is time consuming and emotionally draining for many women including Nasrin who applied for an Islamic divorce almost 10 years ago.
By protracting the time it takes for women to obtain Islamic divorces, Sharia law bodies are punishing women for their failure to maintain miserable marriages, and in Nasrin’s case an abusive forced marriage which was flawed from its incept. Rather than freeing Muslim women from the shackles of unhappy marriages they are kept in limbo and are expected to mourn their destructive marriages and to reflect on their failures as wives and mothers. Worryingly some Sharia law bodies are growing cynical business enterprises, which use their position of power to maintain unequal gender relations while profiteering on the misery of Muslim women.
Anne-Marie Waters, Spokesperson for One Law for All commented – “the very process employed by Sharia law bodies is gender discriminatory, flawed and incompatible with UK legislation”. For instance, unlike male divorce applicants, women are requested to bring along two Muslim, male witnesses to corroborate their testimony. I have yet to represent a Muslim woman who is able to comply with this gender discriminatory requirement that is contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Not only are such requirements near impossible to adhere to, but they also reflect Sharia law bodies’ ideology that women are second class citizens. A stark comparison can be drawn between the way in which women are perceived as lacking capacity to give evidence before Sharia law bodies and their inability to give evidence in court to substantiate their own cases in Dickensian times. Women were treated as criminals not citizens in Dickensian times; their belonging to society was rejected as they were portrayed as mad and bad because of their gender. Sharia law bodies are a 21st century example of the patriarchal Dickensian period that eventually prompted the early Suffragettes to engage in feminist activism to bring about gendered change.
Where are the Suffragettes now that we need them? Fortunately we have Baroness Cox’s Bill, which aims to prevent Sharia law bodies from ruling on family and criminal matters. With collective action from politicians, lawyers, human rights and women’s rights organisations it is hoped that Muslim women will be better informed of their right to seek legal remedies under UK law instead of submitting to Sharia law bodies that promote and subsist in a patriarchal framework that runs parallel to UK law.