Monday, June 29, 2009

What hope and change really means

A nutshell history of the recent Honduran turmoil:

'[President of Honduras] Zelaya wants a referendum to be held this Sunday that would allow voters in the upcoming presidential elections in November to also vote on rewriting the constitution. Zelaya's term is scheduled to end in January.

Most recently, rewriting the Constitution is one of the trademarks of Chavista-style regimes like Ecuador and Bolivia, but the maneuver is not limited to them.'

'Zelaya was arrested right before the voting on the referendum was scheduled to start. The referendum had been declared unlawful by the country’s courts.'

'Background on the referendum, which Zelaya insisted on in spite of it having been declared unlawful:

* When the armed forces refused to distribute the ballots, Zelaya fired the chief of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez, and the defense minister, the head of the army and the air force resigned in protest.
* Yesterday the Supreme Court ordered by a 5-0 vote that Vásquez be reinstated.
* Honduras’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal ordered authorities to pick up all the ballots and electoral material, which were held by the country’s air force.
* The country’s Attorney General requested yesterday that Congress oust Zelaya.
* The courts have declared the referendum unlawful. Last Tuesday the Congress passed a law preventing the holding of referendums or plebiscites 180 days before or after general elections. Congress has also named a commission to investigate Zelaya.

This is the first coup in Honduras since 1982 when a democratically elected civilian government came to power.'

Actually, its not a coup at all.

"'Honduras’ La Prensa states that (Fausta's Blog Translation:

'An official statement of the Supreme Court of Justice explained that the Armed Forces acted under lawful grounds when detaining the President of the Republic, and by decommissioning the materials to be used on the illegal poll which aimed to bring forth Executive Power against a judicial order.

Other sources verified that the president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, will assume the presidency of the republic in a few hours.

Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was detained this morning by the military in compliance with an order of the courts of law.'"

So, to recap- Now Ex-Presidente Manuel Zelaya, Chavist stooge, was trying to get the constitution changed, against the will of the whole of the rest of government and the state and the people of Honduras. His plebiscite was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras, but he went ahead with it anyway. Thats because he wanted un-limited terms in executive power. And now...

[More from]

'Hugo Chavez declared that “we are not going to watch with our arms crossed the goings-on in Honduras,” and insisted “we will do what we will have to do so the sovereignty of the Honduran people will be respected.”'

'Nicaraguan paper La Prensa Gráfica reports that the Venezuelan ambassador to the Organization of American States claims that the ambassadors for Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua in Honduras were kidnapped, hooded, and beaten. OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza announced he will travel to Honduras.' He's a disinterested observer! Can't think why he'd invent a bullshit story like that...

'Chavez warns Honduras with “war” if anything happens to the Venezuelan ambassador in Honduras. (Fausta's Blog translation)

President Hugo Chavez has warned the Honduran military behind the coup today with “war” if anything happens to our ambassador in Tegucigalpa, or if the Venezuelan embassy is taken.

Chavez said that it would be “a declaration of war” and Venezuela would be forced to send troops. “The Venezuelan Armed Forces are on alert.”

“The military junta would be entering on a de-facto state of war. We would have to act even militarily. I wouldn’t be able to remain with my arms crossed knowing they are assaulting our ambassador.”' Oh, that's why.

So, to continue my recapping- Hugo Chavez is deeply annoyed that his implementation of stooges in all the countries bordering his own has hit a snag. In Honduras, they just don't want a stooge for Presidente. So he has gone all sulky and threatening. Diddums. But now the killer- which side is the President of the United States going to support?

[More from]

Clinton urges condemnation of Honduran action

'Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the action taken against Honduras’ president should be condemned by everyone.'

Well, absolutely! We can't have the mere people of Honduras running their own affairs when Hugo Chavez has already set his sights on doing that, can we?

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Self Contradiction a large part of Iranian political life

'On foreign policy: Iran does not accept Israel and as a consequence there has been no positive sign from Europe or the US in the past 30 years. Mr Ahmadinejad talks straight and frankly to these countries with whom we are never going to have a relationship anyway.

I was hopeful at first with President Obama, but now I am disappointed.

Presidential problems are internal issues and no country should meddle in another's affairs. France, Germany, Britain and US have ignored this rule.'

Now thats what I call conflicted. I bet he doesn't think so!

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Regiments of poodles

"It's very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration," said Obama.

Harwood asked whether he meant Fox News. Obama didn't directly answer, but continued:

"That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front," the president said.

I get this weird feeling from Obama. Its hard to define exactly, but it reminds me of the extremely adept terminators in the "Sarah Connor Chronicles"; they are very very good at mimicking human beings, but never exactly right. Its the difference between what a machine thinks a human is like, and what a human is like. President Obama is very very similar to a mainstream American politician- he gives a fantastic rendition. But its play-acting, and not perfect at that.

For good or ill, President Bush was not acting- what you saw was real. Brash, arrogant at times, not particularly good at expressing what was in and on his mind, but with a broad and concrete understanding of what was going on and what his role in the world as President was. He was very well schooled not just in his job description in the constitution, but the other rules by which Presidents work, which are cultural.

President Obama has none of that knowledge- listen to him talk about the media. No previous President has given a running commentary on which TV stations love them and which don't. There was a good reason for it too. The President has been elected- he steps up to a higher plane at that point, and leaves the daily toil of political slanging and spinning to minions. It is inappropriate to his station to get down in the trenches and get all bloody and muddy.

And in particular, getting personal about the fourth estate is very dangerous ground for a President. There is no formal role for the press in the US Constitution. It isn't mentioned at all. But everyone who has ever taken a passing interesting in public policy and governance understands the absolutely essential services it provides (well, should provide). It shows and tells what government is doing, it explains matters of public importance, it investigates corrupt and ineffective politicians and it analyses public policy. Those are essential services. Presidents throw spanners into those complicated and delicate works at their peril.

Insert the word 'only' into that first sentance: "...I've only got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration". Yup, and about eight that slavishly report my every word and deed with loving encomiums... but I obsess about that one pariah, that one heretic, that one doubter of the true faith... will no one rid me of this Turbulent fox?

"That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front," the president said.' A bare few months ago, President Bush could have spent a large part of his day trawling through the TV channels and still not found a SINGLE ONE that had a positive story about him, including FOX. How much time did he spend whingeing about it? None that we know of. He never complained publicly once.

Not only is President Obama a narcissist, he is a narcissist who cut his teeth in Chicago. That is a town renowned for its dirty, no-holds-barred politics. I believe his instincts are telling him right now, destroy FOX news. Smash it, work out some ploy or gambit to wreck it, make it go bankrupt, make it go away for ever. President Obama didn't grow up with the culture of respect for the written rules and the unwritten cultural rules governing political life in America. Nothing in his public life indicates that he has taken those on board at any point. His campaign for President was possibly the most cynical, ruthless and disgusting in the history of American politics. The hysterical misogynistic dogpile trashing of Sarah Palin, a pleasant heartland American woman, was possibly the lowest point in US politics since Nixons after-dark break-ins; but is not nearly as disturbing as his use of the same tactics against Hilary Clinton, supposedly in the same ideological camp.

ABC news are going to spend a whole day of their output puffing the Obama Socialist Health Care plan. When you have regiments of poodles like that, it must be difficult when a lone solitary fly sits in your ointment.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Yeah, but what about the Royal Family?

On a day when it is announced that the UK jobless total is at a 12-year high, on your discussion forums you obviously want to discuss how quickly we can get rid of the Royal Family. I mean, come on, which one is more deserving of discussion time?

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

A fight for freedom, perhaps

Well worth looking at these pictures of unarmed extremely brave men attacking the Basij, the Hezbollah-like militia the Mullahs use to control Iranian society. From what I can work out from reading the reports, Mousavi's supporters include many educated people and supporters of genuine free civil society values. Saying that, the ability of ANY elected government in Iran to root out the malevolent institutions of the glorious 'Islamic revolution' is severely limited. Only those with no human feeling at all will not feel great sympathy for people who are willing to take on murderous thugs with their bare hands.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Why are they here?

'By contrast, because of the generosity and humanity of the Dutch welfare system — and the “sensitivity” of police and Dutch officials to Islam — I’m at an utter loss to understand why Muslim immigrants hold Dutch society in such brazen contempt. Surely life here is far better than in the places they came from. Yet few seem even remotely grateful. And being grateful means — among other things — following the rules, getting a job, learning the language, and accepting the values.'

Today at Lords Cricket ground, the legendary home of English cricket, the English cricket team were booed as they walked on to the pitch by a crowd of indians who happen to have British passports and who happen to be living in Britain. Many of them are second and third generation 'Britons'.

We have to accept that the kind of immigration that created American society, where a vast array of contributing nationalities, ethnicities and cultures quickly became a unified and cohesive unitary culture based squarely on the dominant anglo-saxon English protestant culture does not occur any more. The kind of immigration described in the quoted piece, where immigrants CHOOSE not to participate in the host culture, despise the host culture and extract as much material gain from the host culture as possible; while maintaining all their own cultural and language characteristics and having no feeling of loyalty or attachment to their current geographical location- Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and many other countries are trying at this very moment to work out how to deal with this phenomenon.

I will make a prediction- you can't deal with it. Many of the indians in the crowd at Lords don't look, sound, act, think or feel like Britons, let alone Englishmen. Where should these people be living? Certainly not in Britain. What if those indians turn on the British state, as many of the pakistani immigrants on these shores already have? Why should real Britons allow such an absurd situation to continue? Willingly hosting immigrants who want to live in Britain absolutely does not include a situation where a sub-nation turns on its host. Those people need to be living in the country where their hearts lie. NOT in a country they would happily betray and fight against.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Spot the story

'College bosses smuggled heroin

Police seized kilos of drugs
Two men who ran colleges for foreign students have been found guilty at Bradford Crown Court of smuggling heroin into the UK in the post.

A third man was convicted of money laundering but acquitted of smuggling. Another was cleared altogether. All had pleaded not guilty.

Yorkshire College, based in Bradford and Manchester, attracted hundreds of students, mostly from Pakistan.'

This is a story about some dodgy geezers who set up bogus colleges, and used them to bring in illegal immigrants and launder money gained from importing heroin, right?

'Analysis of financial accounts at the college and at a Bradford money exchange business ran by two of the men shows that more than £1.2m in profits was sent out of the country to the north west frontier province of Pakistan.

The authorities in Britain say the money is now untraceable, and fear that it might be used to prolong the fighting going on in the area between the Pakistani army and the Taliban.'

Oh right... the story actually is 'northern England is now a province of pakistan, and the completely non-English inhabitants use it as a convenient place to get money for terrorist military operations in the NWFP, home to the worlds largest concentration of murderous scum'.

Thanks for not revealing the true story, BBC website guys! Thanks for giving the story a completely bogus headline, so the people of Britain don't get all riled up and do something about this nest of vipers in their midst.

Not our problem

'IT was interesting to note President Mugabe’s warning in his airport speech on Monday that: "We should never tolerate interference in the domestic affairs of our country."'

I totally agree with Mr Mugabe. £28 Billion pounds of British taxpayer money would be completely unwarranted interference with Zimbabwes domestic affairs, which Mr Mugabe has been running so ably.

If the Zimbabwean government isn't what the Zimbabwean people want, why haven't they done something about it during the decade of destruction and racism? Why should we fix your mess?

Thursday, June 04, 2009

The Cheque isn't in the post

'Zimbabwe needs $45bn (£28bn) in the next five years to revive an economy mauled by years of political conflict.'

I need an Aston Martin V8 fishtail, a 42 foot yacht and a very large villa in the south of France. Anybody else need anything?

Why do I feel a sudden onset of rage when I read things like this? After ten solid years of trashing their own country with a vigor and determination rarely equalled in the chequered history of the world, perhaps Zimbabwean politicians could make at least some pitiful gesture of an effort to get their own house in order before taking taxpayer money from Britain, the US and the other usual suspects?

In 1999, Zimbabwe didn't need handouts from anybody. Its white farmers, white businessmen and white mine engineers and managers were happily making the rest of Zimbabwe solvent. But after the race crusade kicked off, the great fountain of cash stilled. Weird that. So what is your argument Mr Tsvangirai? Why should the white people of Britain reward the black people of Zimbabwe with Billions of pounds for a ten-year campaign of theft and violence against white people? I can't really see whats in it for us...

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Love at first read

'Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…
The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'
Alexis de Tocqueville, quoted in Paul A Rahe's book 'Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift', excerpted on

As a description of 21st century Britain, of the final enervated pathetic form of the the free democracy, this cannot be improved on. I will be buying some De Tocqueville books tomorrow.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Did Bush read my Blog?

'...they have increasingly employed targeted killings, a tactic that eliminates the need to interrogate or incarcerate terrorists but at the cost of killing or maiming suspected terrorists and innocent civilians alike without notice or due process.'

It must be true- there is no other explanation! I pointed out years ago that in all previous conflicts, the price of fighting out of uniform in contravention of the laws of war was a bullet in the back of the head. All armies did it. Only with the Clinton era 'lawyer them to death' policy of dealing with terrorism as a law-and-order issue did the waters become muddied. The rest of the world, outside America and Eurabia, continues as it always has, using the high velocity round solution.

This excellent article makes the straightforward point that there are still terrorists to deal with, and if the CIA aren't allowed to do more than frown at captured enemy combatants, the problem will have to be dealt with by people with a free hand. And that is REALLY BAD NEWS for Al Qaeda and associates. They must look back on the waterboarding and fantastic room service of Gitmo with wistfulness. The Egyptians, Saudis and Moroccans are experts at torture in a way that no American will ever be. And thats who will be doing the job from now on. Score ACLU!

And why bother capturing the illegal enemy combatants at all, if you can insert a very nicely polished hellfire missile up their arse? Saves an enormous amount of time, bureaucracy and cleaning up after messy torture sessions. Missile strikes have increased under President Obama. I guess he reads this blog too. Good man!