A nutshell history of the recent Honduran turmoil:
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2009/06/honduras_in_turmoil_1.html
'[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.'
http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639
'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: http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639)
'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 http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639]
'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 http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639]
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?
Monday, June 29, 2009
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.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8118279.stm
Now thats what I call conflicted. I bet he doesn't think so!
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.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8118279.stm
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.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/06/68243837/1
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.
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.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/06/68243837/1
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
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/this-wont-end-well/
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.
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.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/somethings-rotten-in-rotterdam/2/
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.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/somethings-rotten-in-rotterdam/2/
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.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8080745.stm
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.
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.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8080745.stm
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."'
http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com/index.php/comment/21273-zanu-pf-needs-a-gag
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?
http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com/index.php/comment/21273-zanu-pf-needs-a-gag
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.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8083701.stm
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...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8083701.stm
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 Steynonline.com.
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.
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 Steynonline.com.
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.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052902989.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
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!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052902989.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
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!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Pakistani combatant forces
'An Alphabet Soup Of Terror
Bahukutumbi Raman
Why did the Taliban attack the ISI?'
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/29/taliban-isi-let-jem-lashkar-jaish-pashtun-afghanistan-opinions-contributors-pakistan.html
In this recent post, I discussed the roots of Pakistans various combatant parties. Mr Raman knows a lot more than I do, and if you're interested in the worlds hottest current hotspot, its worth a read.
A couple of things struck me- there is never an effort on the part of the big media organisations to make distinctions between the various groups. The word 'Taliban' is used as a catch-all, despite the very important distinction between groups which are basically deniable proxies of the Pakistan government (Pakhtu Neo Taliban, Punjabi LET) and the rest, which to some extent are at war with it.
The other thing which I found odd- what was the Red Mosque doing full of Pakhtu children? Islamabad is not in a Pakhtun area. Branch office? And I guess the fact that the place was full of weapons and that weapons training was going on in the Red Mosque didn't make the management suspect that maybe the Pakistani government would eventually tire of having this armed camp just up the street from Parliament? I really truly do not understand the dynamics of Pakistani society.
Bahukutumbi Raman
Why did the Taliban attack the ISI?'
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/29/taliban-isi-let-jem-lashkar-jaish-pashtun-afghanistan-opinions-contributors-pakistan.html
In this recent post, I discussed the roots of Pakistans various combatant parties. Mr Raman knows a lot more than I do, and if you're interested in the worlds hottest current hotspot, its worth a read.
A couple of things struck me- there is never an effort on the part of the big media organisations to make distinctions between the various groups. The word 'Taliban' is used as a catch-all, despite the very important distinction between groups which are basically deniable proxies of the Pakistan government (Pakhtu Neo Taliban, Punjabi LET) and the rest, which to some extent are at war with it.
The other thing which I found odd- what was the Red Mosque doing full of Pakhtu children? Islamabad is not in a Pakhtun area. Branch office? And I guess the fact that the place was full of weapons and that weapons training was going on in the Red Mosque didn't make the management suspect that maybe the Pakistani government would eventually tire of having this armed camp just up the street from Parliament? I really truly do not understand the dynamics of Pakistani society.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Russian Stupidity
'Russia alarmed over new EU pact: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned the European Union not to turn a proposed partnership with former Soviet countries against Moscow.
Mr Medvedev was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8061042.stm
D'oh! What did the idiots running Russia think would be the consequences of these actions:
- Cutting off the essential energy supplies of half of the EU like Mafiosi
- invading Georgia for no reason other than a kind of race memory of conquest
- as soon as Russias treasury got in the $50 grand necessary to buy the aviation fuel, re-starting the obnoxious in-your-face overflights of NATO countries, shipping etc. by aging prop-planes
- not just supplying the religio-fascist rulers of Iran with Nuclear technology and supplies, but shielding them in the UN Security Council for good measure
- lining up with every nutjob regime round the world like Venezuela, in a kind of Grand Alliance of the Criminal Regimes
- murdering the few independent-thinking people left in Russia, or indeed wherever they happened to be, including London
- using extreme nationalism and xenophobia as a means of bolstering their illigitimate rule in Russia
- strong-arming foreign companies trying to do business in Russia, until the executives of those companies flee for their lives into hiding
Just a little list off the top of my head. Putin has managed to snatch lowering hatred from the jaws of civility and amicability. The whole of the advanced world willed Russia to step away from the awful inheritance of Communism, and become a new Germany or Japan- countries which also have recent pasts which they still have much to apologise for, yet still play a positive and constructive role in the world.
But they just couldn't do it. Paranoia, corruption, thuggishness and brutality have re-asserted themselves as the driving forces of Russian politics and external relations. How sad, and how stupid.
Mr Medvedev was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8061042.stm
D'oh! What did the idiots running Russia think would be the consequences of these actions:
- Cutting off the essential energy supplies of half of the EU like Mafiosi
- invading Georgia for no reason other than a kind of race memory of conquest
- as soon as Russias treasury got in the $50 grand necessary to buy the aviation fuel, re-starting the obnoxious in-your-face overflights of NATO countries, shipping etc. by aging prop-planes
- not just supplying the religio-fascist rulers of Iran with Nuclear technology and supplies, but shielding them in the UN Security Council for good measure
- lining up with every nutjob regime round the world like Venezuela, in a kind of Grand Alliance of the Criminal Regimes
- murdering the few independent-thinking people left in Russia, or indeed wherever they happened to be, including London
- using extreme nationalism and xenophobia as a means of bolstering their illigitimate rule in Russia
- strong-arming foreign companies trying to do business in Russia, until the executives of those companies flee for their lives into hiding
Just a little list off the top of my head. Putin has managed to snatch lowering hatred from the jaws of civility and amicability. The whole of the advanced world willed Russia to step away from the awful inheritance of Communism, and become a new Germany or Japan- countries which also have recent pasts which they still have much to apologise for, yet still play a positive and constructive role in the world.
But they just couldn't do it. Paranoia, corruption, thuggishness and brutality have re-asserted themselves as the driving forces of Russian politics and external relations. How sad, and how stupid.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Talking freely about the society we want
'Liberals can never say exactly what they want because it’s scary. That’s why they don’t work on talk radio. If they say what they’re goals are unfiltered, it even scares themselves. Look at college campuses; if liberals were unrestrained, is there any doubt their final goal would be socialism and fascism? They inch into any control they can have about our finances and behavior and clamp down on it like wolverines never letting go, but they never talk about their ultimate goals except in the vaguest terms (”Change and happiness!”) because they’re well aware of how much it would freak people out. They want socialism and government control, but they just don’t want to state it that way.'
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/dont-hide-from-the-message/
Absolutely right. The Obama campaign in a nutshell. The mask slipped a couple of times, but nobody except conservatives was watching. Shame, because we were 100% correct.
'Conservative ideals can be stated frankly, though, and not send people running. It can be a little scary - freedom and responsibility is scary - but it’s an argument people will accept. So while liberals dance around what they want, we need to state frankly what our goals are. Lay out a real vision for the future to inspire people.'
I would call this the Mark Steyn\Rush Limbaugh\Daniel Hannan conservatism. Free from self-doubt, shame and timidity; plain spoken; un-fased by the constant lies told about them by the socialists. And most importantly, confirmed in their beliefs by the great mass of evidence around them. When you are trying to persuade people of something, it helps if your words are confirmed by the world itself. If you can point to things all around that confirm your view of the world, most reasonable people will accept what you are saying.
This is something the democrats/socialists/labour can't do. Every time they have their way, the wheels fall off in dramatic fashion. Compare 1979 Britain with 1999 Britain, if you don't believe me. 2009 Britain is returning to 1979 Britain, but then you have the same fu**ing morons in charge. When will the electorate learn? Actually, its worse than 1979. As I pointed out a few days ago, most of our soveriegnty now resides in the hands of the European Commission (unelected). We can't even sack the bastards. Just may have to be the bullet rather than the ballot. Oh well, freedom has ALWAYS been worth fighting for.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/dont-hide-from-the-message/
Absolutely right. The Obama campaign in a nutshell. The mask slipped a couple of times, but nobody except conservatives was watching. Shame, because we were 100% correct.
'Conservative ideals can be stated frankly, though, and not send people running. It can be a little scary - freedom and responsibility is scary - but it’s an argument people will accept. So while liberals dance around what they want, we need to state frankly what our goals are. Lay out a real vision for the future to inspire people.'
I would call this the Mark Steyn\Rush Limbaugh\Daniel Hannan conservatism. Free from self-doubt, shame and timidity; plain spoken; un-fased by the constant lies told about them by the socialists. And most importantly, confirmed in their beliefs by the great mass of evidence around them. When you are trying to persuade people of something, it helps if your words are confirmed by the world itself. If you can point to things all around that confirm your view of the world, most reasonable people will accept what you are saying.
This is something the democrats/socialists/labour can't do. Every time they have their way, the wheels fall off in dramatic fashion. Compare 1979 Britain with 1999 Britain, if you don't believe me. 2009 Britain is returning to 1979 Britain, but then you have the same fu**ing morons in charge. When will the electorate learn? Actually, its worse than 1979. As I pointed out a few days ago, most of our soveriegnty now resides in the hands of the European Commission (unelected). We can't even sack the bastards. Just may have to be the bullet rather than the ballot
Monday, May 18, 2009
Getting Pakistani terrorism wrong
'Pakistan is the powder-keg of the contemporary world.
I said this six years ago, in my investigation of Daniel Pearl's death.
I repeated it on September 12th, 2003 in a piece published by the Washington Post. Its thesis was that the war in Iraq would persist because it was a grossly miscalculated target, one of the worst strategic errors ever to have been committed by the American administration.'
The first statement is a commonly agreed truism. The second, a much repeated bit of pundit folk-wisdom. "I told you the Iraq war would be a disaster!! See what a clever boy I am!" Trouble is, the Iraq 'war' is over and the Iraqi government/US won; despite the best efforts of Al Qaeda, Jaysh-al-Mahdi, the Sunni tribes, the Irainian government, the Syrian government, the French government, the Spanish government, the Russian government and many many more. What a spectacular victory, won with a staggeringly low casualty count by historical standards, and despite the utterly depraved actions of the enemy such as constantly bombing mosques and marketplaces.
Mr Henri-Levy, like most pundits of the same view, fails to state why the Iraq intervention was a strategic error. To generically assert that this or that intervention is a strategic error is asinine- answer the question why if you want to be even vaguely legitimate. I can list at least ten good strategic reasons to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Can you list ten good reasons why it shouldn't have, Mr Henri-Levy? I bet you can't.
1. To get rid of Saddam Hussein, and his hideous, beastly tyranny
2. To create a focal point for islamist terrorists that was NOT the continental United States; to gather them up and kill them; a killing ground if you will.
3. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Iran, with the obvious implications for the Iranian government.
4. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Syria, as above.
5. To indicate to China and the other emergent powers that the American military is not limited to sitting in its bases, and will be used for advancing American strategic objectives.
6. To show Saudi Arabia that the US would not allow Iran and Iraq impunity to attack it.
7. To create a showpiece democracy in the Middle east, friendly to the US.
8. To ensure that the flow of oil from easy-extraction countries was not interfered with.
9. To turn the US military from a bloated, relatively low-morale, unblooded bureacracy into a hardened veteran, legitimate fighting force with high morale.
10. Most importantly, to counteract the world-wide perception that the US did not have the stomach for a fight any more.
Sadly, most of these strategic gains derived from the hard graft and sacrifice of American soldiers, marines and airman have been squandered by the intellectual giant in the White House.
'And where lie the roots of this disturbing Pakistani situation? There is, first of all, the fact that when we refer to the “Taliban” in Pakistan, we are talking about Al Quaeda, and literally Al Quaeda, since the constituent elements of its sphere of influence – groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Janghvi, or Jaish-e-Mohammed – comprise the hardcore of Bin Laden’s organization itself.'
From everything I have read about Pakistani terrorist groups, that is a deformation of the actual situation. For example, Lashkar-e-Toiba is the main vehicle for Pakistani terrorism and destabilisation operations in Kashmir. It's been around a very long time, much longer than Al Qaeda. Lumping together all islamic terror groups as simply elements of Al Qaeda provides no insight whatsoever. The Taliban government in Afghanistan were happy to host Al Qaeda, but they weren't Al Qaeda. The Afghani Taliban had very different goals. They were happy to have Afghanistan as their scope for action. Al Qaeda have always seen the whole world as their stage. The Afghani Taliban were the Stalinists, Al Qaeda Trotskyists, if you will.
Not only that, a very large part of both Afghani and Pakistani Taliban motivation is Pakhtun culture, the Pahktunwali. They are proud mountain warriors, and they despise the farmers and traders of the lowlands. They have always lived by the gun and extortion. In contrast, Al Qaeda are the islamist fascist vanguard, spoiled children of middle-class muslims from all over, but especially the richer countries. They see it as their role to murder their way to world domination in the name of a stark, puritanical wahhabist islam.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is a hodge-podge of malcontents from all over, whose main unifying principle is murderous intent. Most of the groups named by Henri-Levy have very different goals indeed. Laskar-e-Toiba want Kashmir in toto to be ruled from Islamabad. Where is the cross-over with Al Qaeda? There is very little. Most of the groups named are also creatures to some extent of the Pakistani government, and act as its proxies. Al Qaeda is not. It is useful to no one, really, due to its rediculously extreme positions and 7th century ideas, and habit of murdering other muslims. How many of the rank and file of the Taliban, Laskar-e-Toiba etc want the return of a caliphate, the destruction of America, the re-conquest of Al-Andalus, and all the other Al Qaeda holy grails, in any other than a very theoretical way? Their goals and aims are far more concrete and local.
There is no question that the whole of Pakistani society provides a friendly pond in which ALL islamist terror groups can swim. The police will only very infrequently interfere with them, and the man on the Islamabad omnibus is heartily in favor of their goals. This does present the rest of the world, but in particular India and Afghanistan with a depressing long-term problem. Al Qaeda may be an unwelcome guest in Pakistan, but most Pakistanis will do nothing to help destroy it.
The question in my mind is this: will myopia in Pakistan eventually lead to the almost complete destruction of Pakistini civil society from within, and invasion by its neighbors enraged by the constant attentions of the Pakistani government proxies? There is a strange symmetry here between the arc of Al Qaeda, and the country of Pakistan. Initial success before the victims determine the real intentions, followed by long-term defeat, indeed annihilation. Lets hope for the sake of millions of disinterested ordinary Pakistanis that thats not true.
I said this six years ago, in my investigation of Daniel Pearl's death.
I repeated it on September 12th, 2003 in a piece published by the Washington Post. Its thesis was that the war in Iraq would persist because it was a grossly miscalculated target, one of the worst strategic errors ever to have been committed by the American administration.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22602.html
The first statement is a commonly agreed truism. The second, a much repeated bit of pundit folk-wisdom. "I told you the Iraq war would be a disaster!! See what a clever boy I am!" Trouble is, the Iraq 'war' is over and the Iraqi government/US won; despite the best efforts of Al Qaeda, Jaysh-al-Mahdi, the Sunni tribes, the Irainian government, the Syrian government, the French government, the Spanish government, the Russian government and many many more. What a spectacular victory, won with a staggeringly low casualty count by historical standards, and despite the utterly depraved actions of the enemy such as constantly bombing mosques and marketplaces.
Mr Henri-Levy, like most pundits of the same view, fails to state why the Iraq intervention was a strategic error. To generically assert that this or that intervention is a strategic error is asinine- answer the question why if you want to be even vaguely legitimate. I can list at least ten good strategic reasons to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Can you list ten good reasons why it shouldn't have, Mr Henri-Levy? I bet you can't.
1. To get rid of Saddam Hussein, and his hideous, beastly tyranny
2. To create a focal point for islamist terrorists that was NOT the continental United States; to gather them up and kill them; a killing ground if you will.
3. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Iran, with the obvious implications for the Iranian government.
4. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Syria, as above.
5. To indicate to China and the other emergent powers that the American military is not limited to sitting in its bases, and will be used for advancing American strategic objectives.
6. To show Saudi Arabia that the US would not allow Iran and Iraq impunity to attack it.
7. To create a showpiece democracy in the Middle east, friendly to the US.
8. To ensure that the flow of oil from easy-extraction countries was not interfered with.
9. To turn the US military from a bloated, relatively low-morale, unblooded bureacracy into a hardened veteran, legitimate fighting force with high morale.
10. Most importantly, to counteract the world-wide perception that the US did not have the stomach for a fight any more.
Sadly, most of these strategic gains derived from the hard graft and sacrifice of American soldiers, marines and airman have been squandered by the intellectual giant in the White House.
'And where lie the roots of this disturbing Pakistani situation? There is, first of all, the fact that when we refer to the “Taliban” in Pakistan, we are talking about Al Quaeda, and literally Al Quaeda, since the constituent elements of its sphere of influence – groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Janghvi, or Jaish-e-Mohammed – comprise the hardcore of Bin Laden’s organization itself.'
From everything I have read about Pakistani terrorist groups, that is a deformation of the actual situation. For example, Lashkar-e-Toiba is the main vehicle for Pakistani terrorism and destabilisation operations in Kashmir. It's been around a very long time, much longer than Al Qaeda. Lumping together all islamic terror groups as simply elements of Al Qaeda provides no insight whatsoever. The Taliban government in Afghanistan were happy to host Al Qaeda, but they weren't Al Qaeda. The Afghani Taliban had very different goals. They were happy to have Afghanistan as their scope for action. Al Qaeda have always seen the whole world as their stage. The Afghani Taliban were the Stalinists, Al Qaeda Trotskyists, if you will.
Not only that, a very large part of both Afghani and Pakistani Taliban motivation is Pakhtun culture, the Pahktunwali. They are proud mountain warriors, and they despise the farmers and traders of the lowlands. They have always lived by the gun and extortion. In contrast, Al Qaeda are the islamist fascist vanguard, spoiled children of middle-class muslims from all over, but especially the richer countries. They see it as their role to murder their way to world domination in the name of a stark, puritanical wahhabist islam.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is a hodge-podge of malcontents from all over, whose main unifying principle is murderous intent. Most of the groups named by Henri-Levy have very different goals indeed. Laskar-e-Toiba want Kashmir in toto to be ruled from Islamabad. Where is the cross-over with Al Qaeda? There is very little. Most of the groups named are also creatures to some extent of the Pakistani government, and act as its proxies. Al Qaeda is not. It is useful to no one, really, due to its rediculously extreme positions and 7th century ideas, and habit of murdering other muslims. How many of the rank and file of the Taliban, Laskar-e-Toiba etc want the return of a caliphate, the destruction of America, the re-conquest of Al-Andalus, and all the other Al Qaeda holy grails, in any other than a very theoretical way? Their goals and aims are far more concrete and local.
There is no question that the whole of Pakistani society provides a friendly pond in which ALL islamist terror groups can swim. The police will only very infrequently interfere with them, and the man on the Islamabad omnibus is heartily in favor of their goals. This does present the rest of the world, but in particular India and Afghanistan with a depressing long-term problem. Al Qaeda may be an unwelcome guest in Pakistan, but most Pakistanis will do nothing to help destroy it.
The question in my mind is this: will myopia in Pakistan eventually lead to the almost complete destruction of Pakistini civil society from within, and invasion by its neighbors enraged by the constant attentions of the Pakistani government proxies? There is a strange symmetry here between the arc of Al Qaeda, and the country of Pakistan. Initial success before the victims determine the real intentions, followed by long-term defeat, indeed annihilation. Lets hope for the sake of millions of disinterested ordinary Pakistanis that thats not true.
What is a moderate?
'Obama picks off another moderate
President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China doesn’t merely remove a likely challenger — it strips the Republican Party of one of its few voices urging moderation.
Obama’s pick leaves the GOP without an obvious centrist presidential candidate two years before the primary jockeying begins in full. By dispatching Huntsman to Beijing, Obama is effectively trying to determine the sort of Republican he and his top advisers would like to face in 2012.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22636.html
RINO. Statist. Big governmenter. Indistinguishable from euro-Dems. Against the use of American power to do good in the world. Unwilling to fight Islamist fascism. Thats a moderate.
Politics is very often about the use and misuse of language. As the wretched out-dated, long-debunked 20th century policies of the Democrat/Socialists/Big staters have grown ever more shop-worn and pathetic, the geniality of the debate has succumbed to desperation. Given what they are selling, the Dems have to lie A LOT. They have to use every dubious strategem of misdirection, Big Brother Newspeak, covering evidence, manufacturing evidence and the politics of personal destruction.
I'm going to make a prediction. The internal idiocy of the Dems current position, trying to sell the 20th centuries worst ideas as 21st century hip, snazzy novelties; will bring about one of the shortest periods of dominance for a major political party ever. By early 2010, the Obama white house, the Pelosi House of Representatives and the Harry Reid Senate will be busted flushes.
Don't forget to check back in.
President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China doesn’t merely remove a likely challenger — it strips the Republican Party of one of its few voices urging moderation.
Obama’s pick leaves the GOP without an obvious centrist presidential candidate two years before the primary jockeying begins in full. By dispatching Huntsman to Beijing, Obama is effectively trying to determine the sort of Republican he and his top advisers would like to face in 2012.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22636.html
RINO. Statist. Big governmenter. Indistinguishable from euro-Dems. Against the use of American power to do good in the world. Unwilling to fight Islamist fascism. Thats a moderate.
Politics is very often about the use and misuse of language. As the wretched out-dated, long-debunked 20th century policies of the Democrat/Socialists/Big staters have grown ever more shop-worn and pathetic, the geniality of the debate has succumbed to desperation. Given what they are selling, the Dems have to lie A LOT. They have to use every dubious strategem of misdirection, Big Brother Newspeak, covering evidence, manufacturing evidence and the politics of personal destruction.
I'm going to make a prediction. The internal idiocy of the Dems current position, trying to sell the 20th centuries worst ideas as 21st century hip, snazzy novelties; will bring about one of the shortest periods of dominance for a major political party ever. By early 2010, the Obama white house, the Pelosi House of Representatives and the Harry Reid Senate will be busted flushes.
Don't forget to check back in.
Bed, Bath and Beyond Gift vouchers?
'Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to meet Obama
Mr Netanyahu and his wife Sara arrived in Washington on Sunday
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is due at the White House for his first meeting with US President Barack Obama.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8055105.stm
I wonder what hastily bought tawdry crap he can expect?
Mr Netanyahu and his wife Sara arrived in Washington on Sunday
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is due at the White House for his first meeting with US President Barack Obama.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8055105.stm
I wonder what hastily bought tawdry crap he can expect?
Disgusting misdirection of the public debate
'Can MPs recover from expenses row?
Can politicians recover from the expenses row?
The Speaker of the House of Commons is to make a statement to MPs on Monday, amid growing calls for him to quit over the expenses scandal. Has politics been permanently damaged?
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for Michael Martin to resign while MPs from all parties have signed a motion of no confidence.
After the latest revelations in the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street says an inquiry will be launched into claims that Labour MP Ben Chapman was given permission to claim allowances for mortgage interest he no longer paid.
Have you lost faith in politicians? How can MPs regain your trust? Is it enough to pay back the money claimed on expenses? Have these revelations put you off voting?'
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6430&edition=1&ttl=20090518122245
When the general public and the massed ranks of the underemployed, over excitable big media get over their flamboyant hysteria over this 'scandal', there may well be some red faces. From so many angles, this is a non-story. Britain has ceded something like 84% of its sovereignty to the EU. That means that Westminster parliamentarians are responsible for the other 16%. Which by my reckoning makes them pretty unimportant, apart from the residual affection the public have for their legacy parliament. Even if our MP's are complete rubbish, it doesn't really matter to Britain. We are governed from Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the EU institutions than our 569 MPs.
Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the grotesquely bloated UK government, with all its massive benefit regimes, quangos and socialist boondoggles. But since the Tories stopped discussing socialism in public, those topics have disappeared completely from public discourse in Britain. Now, apart from a few lonely voices like Daniel Hannan, the statist world-view envelopes all. Discussing a few hundred pounds of expenses when hundreds of billions of our wealth are disappearing down the toilet is not just obtuse- its obscene. I tell you what- we'll get back to discussing the MP's expenses just as soon as the state is removed from education provision, health provision, 'job creation', enabling dependent lifestyles and fixing the economic playing field.
Can politicians recover from the expenses row?
The Speaker of the House of Commons is to make a statement to MPs on Monday, amid growing calls for him to quit over the expenses scandal. Has politics been permanently damaged?
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for Michael Martin to resign while MPs from all parties have signed a motion of no confidence.
After the latest revelations in the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street says an inquiry will be launched into claims that Labour MP Ben Chapman was given permission to claim allowances for mortgage interest he no longer paid.
Have you lost faith in politicians? How can MPs regain your trust? Is it enough to pay back the money claimed on expenses? Have these revelations put you off voting?'
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6430&edition=1&ttl=20090518122245
When the general public and the massed ranks of the underemployed, over excitable big media get over their flamboyant hysteria over this 'scandal', there may well be some red faces. From so many angles, this is a non-story. Britain has ceded something like 84% of its sovereignty to the EU. That means that Westminster parliamentarians are responsible for the other 16%. Which by my reckoning makes them pretty unimportant, apart from the residual affection the public have for their legacy parliament. Even if our MP's are complete rubbish, it doesn't really matter to Britain. We are governed from Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the EU institutions than our 569 MPs.
Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the grotesquely bloated UK government, with all its massive benefit regimes, quangos and socialist boondoggles. But since the Tories stopped discussing socialism in public, those topics have disappeared completely from public discourse in Britain. Now, apart from a few lonely voices like Daniel Hannan, the statist world-view envelopes all. Discussing a few hundred pounds of expenses when hundreds of billions of our wealth are disappearing down the toilet is not just obtuse- its obscene. I tell you what- we'll get back to discussing the MP's expenses just as soon as the state is removed from education provision, health provision, 'job creation', enabling dependent lifestyles and fixing the economic playing field.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Real Barack Obama slides into view
'Obama could have had a one-time stimulus, then vowed to balance the budget. He might have praised wind and solar as he asked the carbon industry to ‘get us through.’ He could have politely disagreed with Bush, but framing differences in the tragic notion of no good choices. He might have cooled the overseas apologies, savvy that other nations have more to apologize for than his own. Obama should have established zero-tolerance for tax avoidance at a time of record tax increases. He could have remonstrated with Wall Street, and sought to rein in excess without Europeanizing the financial sector. He could have proactively reformed entitlements with bipartisan support, rather than, as will happen, drastically address them in the 11th hour.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/2/
Possibly the best way of analysing Obama I have yet read. I think of it like this: if Obama was the man he told us he was, he would have done what the superbly clear Victor Davis Hanson describes.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/2/
Possibly the best way of analysing Obama I have yet read. I think of it like this: if Obama was the man he told us he was, he would have done what the superbly clear Victor Davis Hanson describes.
Friday, May 15, 2009
George W Bush II
"Obama 'to revive military trials'
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8051275.stm
New boss, same as the old boss, as Instapundit would say.
Far from Obama showing us a piercing and original intellect, over and over again he demonstrates that his hifalutin sermonizing during the electoral campaign was based on no serious analysis. He has no replacement for Guantanamo Bay, he has nowhere to send the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and he has no legal solution to the status of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay other than the one already devised.
He is a hollow vessel. His denunciations from 2008 now fall upon his own head, and are revealed as the specious cant that we said they were at the time.
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8051275.stm
New boss, same as the old boss, as Instapundit would say.
Far from Obama showing us a piercing and original intellect, over and over again he demonstrates that his hifalutin sermonizing during the electoral campaign was based on no serious analysis. He has no replacement for Guantanamo Bay, he has nowhere to send the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and he has no legal solution to the status of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay other than the one already devised.
He is a hollow vessel. His denunciations from 2008 now fall upon his own head, and are revealed as the specious cant that we said they were at the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)