Europe's failure and Obama's exceptionalism

I recently started to post on a daily basis, a review of the news, with my own particular slant on it.
Observant readers will notice I haven't managed to do this for a few days.  Don't worry, it is a specially heavy workload that has got to me, not the forces of evil!

Also, there really hasn't been that much 'new' in the news.

We continue to hear weasel words from politicians that talk tough but in reality do little.

President Obama likes to think he is exceptional.  Certainly his description of the horrors perpetrated in Paris, by Islamic extremists, as a 'setback' puts him into a particularly 'exceptional' class.  He is unable to even call the terrorists, Islamic.  He did the same when describing the Fort Hood massacre, carried out by a Muslim, who claimed to be a jihadi, as an incident of 'workplace violence'.

President Obama, is very largely alone in his denial and refusal to call these terrorists, Islamic.  The 'twitterati' insist that is because he is of the Muslim faith.  Certainly he has spent a great deal of time with Muslims - spending part of his youth in Muslim Indonesia, could well have guided him on his faith path - but I think that it goes deeper than that.  In my view his upbringing, which was centered on the Communist way, embedded in him, a deep hatred of the West and America in particular and he cannot bring himself to berate people who share his views.  I know that may sound extreme but listen to his speeches and he regularly talks about what he sees as  'the ills of America' and the West.  His words are not too far dissimilar from those of the leaders of Daesh and Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and the Shining Path and other anti-West terrorists organisation.

Paris is starting to return to normal, or at least the new normal.  A state of emergency is in place and French troops patrol the streets and landmark properties.
Brussels, the capital of Belgium and the principal seat of the European Parliament, has been in lock-down for days.
The British shamefully dither about whether or not to extend bombing to Daesh targets, in Syria, while at the same time, thinking that getting Islamists, who are returning from fighting for Daesh, to attend 'de-radicalisation' classes, will somehow solve the fifth column problem.
Ultra-Liberal Sweden is now enjoying the fruits of its ever-open door for immigrants while becoming the 'rape' capital of Europe.  Maybe,  inviting in all of those unaccompanied men, who vastly predominate in the 'refugee' population, it is not entirely a surprise that Sweden has a new 'achievement'.
Meanwhile, very belatedly, fences are starting to go up and the Schengen agreement is falling to pieces.  It is impossible to justify open borders, when their very openness invites in people who have no qualms about murdering their hosts.  And these people who are often aided and abetted by local co-religionists.

For Belgians it must be particularly galling that having opened their country to wave after wave of immigrants and turning a blind eye, while within these hordes some used Belgium as an operational base, they are now experiencing the effects of their laissez faire policies being visited upon their own doorsteps.

The same could be said of Sweden.  This is a country that has always been very open to 'refugees' and now the local population are finding themselves swamped.  Not widely reported in the media, it seems that some (many?) Swedes have had enough and there are signs of rising resentment with refugee centres being fire-bombed and so on.

All the while, the European Union goes on its merry, expensive and ineffectual way.  Germany's Angela Merkel is quieter these days as she is reeling from the backlash unleashed by her idiotic 'we will take you all in' invitation.  So into the breach, steps the unelected Jean-Claude Juncker.  For non-European readers, he is the non-entity that is the President of the European Commission, who was selected by EU leaders.  He is a former Prime Minister of Luxembourg, so you have an adequate sense of his experience on the world stage!

Meanwhile, in the background, Greece is still teetering on the economic brink and Portugal is dallying with a government that has a plurality and is anti-austerity and very much opposed to the EU/IMF/World Bank austerity.

Maybe there is some new news, after all!

To Americans, have a safe and peaceful Thanksgiving holiday.
        

America's next President

This is principally aimed at the candidates that are vying for the highest office in America.  In fact, it is directed towards those seeking the Republican nomination.  Maybe think of it as as kind of 'what's needed' list.

First and foremost - integrity.  Under the previous Clinton Administration, America and the world became accustomed to disingenuous and evasive answers to straight-forward questions.  Under the Obama regime, the spineless American media mostly hasn't even bothered to ask questions.  They have accepted the froth pushed out by the mendacious White House.  Given the close familial ties between senior White House staffers and media personnel, that is perhaps, not too surprising.  So the next President needs to be honest (examples are below) and to actually talk to the American people and those in the rest of the world - not read scripted lies and half-truths from an autocue.

Secondly, have a plan to tackle the deficit.  Here is where some of that honesty is required.  The next President needs to tell America that it has to stop living beyond its means.  Americans must be told that it is not acceptable to impoverish their children, grand-children and great-grandchildren.  They need to know and understand that America must not only eliminate its deficit but must also reduce its debt.  That means a budget that matches revenue from taxes, with expenditure.  On the expenditure side, some of that money must go towards paying down the US National Debt.

This is where a GOP led Congress comes in.  The House and Senate must put the national interests ahead of those of their own district's/State's.  Many of these Republicans have been elected - some repeatedly so - on a ticket of being 'fiscally prudent and responsible'.  Well there isn't much prudence or responsibility in stuffing the US Budget with your own pork-barrel wants.

Of course, any President or even any nominee, telling Americans that they need to tighten their belts will face strong, even rabid opposition.  The choice though is simple and stark - rein back spending now or sit back and watch America's continued decline, on all fronts.  Sit back, do nothing and see more and more Americans on food stamps - more than 49 million, at the moment (and climbing) and they are not all immigrants!

Part of this also requires addressing the immigration issue.  How, when America is broke - and believe me, a country with the debt levels that America has, is broke - how can America afford to bring in more and more immigrants? Legal or illegal is doesn't matter, America just doesn't have the resources to fund these people.  The biggest part of this problem lies with illegal immigration.  It sounds crazy to have to say this but the in-coming President must understand that when he or she swears the oath of office, part of protecting the US Constitution means upholding the laws of the United States.  So the southern border must be closed and such closure must be enforced by appropriate forces - military, Homeland Security and local law enforcement, until such time as primary security devices - otherwise known as a very high wall and such - are in place.   Allied to this must be the expulsion of illegal immigrants already in the USA.  Absolutely no amnesty.  Let me say that again, No Amnesty  - it is so very wrong to reward law-breaking.

Consider, for a moment.  The Department of Homeland Security has a budget in excess of US$38 billion.  A significant part of their brief is to 'secure and manage' the border.  Does anyone think that they have done a good job on that, in recent years?  They have effectively facilitated the invasion of illegal immigrants.  Does anyone really think that Daesh and Al Qaeda have not managed to slip terrorist murderers across the border, when it has been so porous?  As with politicians and the media in Europe, Obama and the press would have you ignore the evidence of your eyes and instead believe that all of the invading force are women and children!

Immigration brings thoughts of foreign relations.  I don't want to be too radical but America's next President needs to remember that the USA's allies are friends.  Ignoring them, bypassing them is not the way to treat them.  How did it come to pass that America finds itself allied itself with Iran?  A country that immediately after ending its dancing on the streets of Tehran, following the so called 'Iran Agreement' , then has its leader, the war-monger Khameni, calling for 'Death to America'.  How can America abandon Israel, simply because its Prime Minister doesn't suck-up or kow-tow to the narcissistic Obama?  Isn't it enough that Obama abases the USA with his bowing down to the terrorist supporting Saudis and Qataris?

In addition to remembering which countries are America's friends the next President should also bring basic negotiating skills to the table.  Giving nuclear weapons to Iran will surely be Obama's true legacy but so will abandoning millions of Cubans to continued servitude under the oppressive Castro regime.   The next President needs to remember that Iran's development of inter-continental missiles does not represent a threat to Israel.  They are aimed at the USA!

The next President will have a full domestic agenda, clearing-up the mess that is ObamaCare and the socialistic Common Core programme but he or she should not ignore foreign affairs.  North Korea, like Iran has become emboldened under Obama - indeed it is hard to think which enemy of the USA hasn't - but the next President cannot afford to further alienate ~America's traditional allies.

The next President needs to have a sense of proportion.  John Kerry and Obama might consider Climate Change, or whatever it is being called this week, to be the greatest threat to national security but the true greatest threat is terrorism in all its guises - the state-sponsored variety from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the enemy within.  This fifth column, which seeks to impose shariah law in America, is led by the Council on American Islam Relations (CAIR).  These people are falsely recognised as 'moderates'.  The regularly cover-up for what the media then calls ' the excesses ' of Islamic behaviour.  The truth is that these are not 'excesses'.  They are the realities of Islam.  These media fools, and their fellow-travellers in Washington, think that one can coexist with Islam.  They ignore the plight of Christians in the Middle East, who, as I write  are being eliminated, every hour of every day (if that comes as a surprise to you, blame the media's blindness!)    Homosexuals are thrown off of buildings - the media and Obama says nothing.  Women are stoned to death for adultery because they 'allowed'  themselves to be raped and America's President says nothing.

I mentioned earlier, that the next President needs to restore integrity to the office.  Hand in hand with that is honesty and demanding that of others.  Liberals or Progressives, call them what you will, have mis-appropriated the English language and have, for too long, been allowed to get away with blatant hypocrisy.  The oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals, they oppose racism and then they support the murder of unborn children, which is the largest killer of America's blacks.  They don't just support abortion, they want the state to fund it.  They do this because they believe in it but they don't accept that others are very opposed to it and certainly are against paying for it.  That's the Liberal version of freedom of speech.  You can have freedom of speech, so long as you agree with their views.  If you don't, you are a racist, homophobe or right-wing or a fascist, etc..

To wrap-up, in the same vein, can anyone say what it is that homosexuals want?  By all studies, they represent a small percentage of the population - 3-5% in Western countries.  Initially they wanted to end discrimination that they were subjected to.  This they have largely achieved and yet now they want more.  Don't know what it is that they want  but they want more!  They want to not be persecuted for the sexual choices, that's fair enough, I guess.  Why then do they want to provoke and persecute people that have very deeply held religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality?  Why is it okay to support homosexuality but not okay to oppose it.  And, fundamentally, why do these very same Liberals that are so pro-homosexuality,  also also silent on the atrocities that are perpetrated against homosexuals, by Muslims, around the world, not just in the Daesh areas of Syria and Iraq..  Hopefully, the next President will 'call-out' these hypocrites and bring honesty to the White House.

If not Assad

It is clear that we are moving towards a change in approach to the Syrian civil war.

Putin's Russia has always been clear that he supports the regime of President Assad.  We can sense though, that some European leaders are also moving in that direction.  The problem for the Europeans is that they have been very publicly strident in their condemnation of Assad.  They have repeatedly said, that Assad must go and they wouldn't talk to him.

Finally, however, these leaders are recognising that Assad has to play a part in the process.  This dawning of reality, however odious it might seem (and do listen out for the knee-jerk shrieks of horror from the liberal media), also finally moves the focus very strongly onto how to eliminate Daesh (ISIS).

Russia is calling for coordination of the military effort and, if only to avoid a potential clash between East and West forces, this really has to happen.  France has now commenced air operations against Daesh, in Syria - having earlier said that such actions would be illegal!  Seems like President Hollande is putting socialist rhetoric behind realpolitik in the pecking order.  UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is expected to bring a motion before parliament, within the coming weeks, seeking parliamentary approval for the UK to join in the bombing of Daesh targets in Syria.  If Germany can pull itself away from the silly Volkswagen matter, then they too might participate.

This coalescing towards a coordinated and focused attack on Daesh can have a number of positive effects.

Firstly, this should allow for the creation of a series of safe zones within Syria, protected by the air power available.

Secondly, this will then provide a reason to halt the flood of migrants that have been leaving Syria.  For this, real assistance, rather than just score settling with Turkish Kurds, will be need to be demanded from Turkey.  Demanded because Turkey has, throughout the whole sorry story, served only its own interests.  Indeed, it is clear that Turkey, led by the strongly Islamic Erdogan, has allowed for a significant destabilisation of its neighbours and the EU.

Thirdly, this will take the fight to Daesh.  It is clear that the Syrians do not have the capability to eliminate them.  It is equally clear that the Iraqi army does not have the stomach for a fight against Daesh.  They have very little to no support amongst Sunni Iraqis.  Their Shia militias are simply lawless and, not too different from Daesh in how they subjugate the areas they occupy.  Their Iranian allies, seem more interested in colonizing the south of Iraq than in taking on Daesh.  The Kurdish Peshmerga can, and do, hold the line against Daesh but they are poorly armed and, due to Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian pressure, the West have produced very feeble support and materiel, so the Peshmerga are being under-used.

The issue of who succeeds Assad needn't concern us, at this point.  He is very weakened and whatever the outcome, cannot survive in the medium term.  This does not mean that Syria, free  of Daesh, will become a democracy post-Assad.  One has to question whether or not, the imposition of Western style democracy is suited for some countries, including Syria.  The Syrian civil war was a direct outcome of the so called Arab Spring.  This 'flowering' of people power has led to absolute chaos in Libya, an effective military dictatorship in Egypt (no realm change there!) and a loosening of control in Tunisia, following the ousting of long-term President Ben Ali, such that Islamic terror can stalk their tourist resorts, killing at will.

So change is coming to the Syria conflict and this will create some strange bed-fellows but the West, if Obama and Kerry's naivete  can be sidelined, has an opportunity to eliminate Daesh and then to eliminate Al Qaeda in Syria (though doing the latter might just create a vacuum for Hezbollah to fill). Now therefore, is the time for Cameron and Hollande to show backbone and stand-up to this lame-duck US President and his court-jester Secretary of State.  Who knows, they might even get some trade-off, from Russia, relative to Ukraine.

Mediterranean migrants

The leaders of the European Union are meeting, just now, to try and come up with a solution to the problem of migrants who risk their lives fleeing Libya and heading to mainland Europe.

Surely the best solution, indeed, the only sensible solution is simply to turn-around the boats that leave Libya and send them back to Libya and to keep on doing this.  In effect, establish a naval blockade of Libya.  If the boats become un-seaworthy or are deliberately scuttled by the migrants or their traffickers, then rescue the people and put them back onto Libya's beaches.

Allowing these migrants to get into Europe, as has already been done, just tells others that this is a gateway.  This gateway must be closed.

Some other observations.

Why don't those Nigerians that are fleeing Boko Haram, move to the South of Nigeria?  There is no Boko Haram there!

Why don't those fleeing Eritrea and Somalia and so on, travel to Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Algeria?  All are co-religionists and in the case of Saudi Arabia, the migrants would have a found a rich country, in which to find work and happiness.

Have any of those that say that the EU must launch rescue missions, considered how many of these people might be Al Qaeda or Daesh supporters?

Why do so many of these migrants have a single destination - the UK -  in mind?  In addition to providing Royal Navy resources to close the Libya gateway, the UK government must impress upon France the need for them to better manage migrant camps in that country and the UK government must impose full- check border controls at the UK border ports and immediately deport, before these people enter into England, all of these migrants.  Yes it will cause some chaos at southern ports but the benefits far outweighs the inconvenience.  These people simply cannot be allowed to come under the auspices of the Human Rights legislation.  If they do, Immigration Tribunals and leftist Justices, who live far from the consequences of unfettered immigration, will continue to ride rough-shod over the wishes of the British people and our elected officials.

Oh, and a question for the biased BBC.  When you push the story of the plight of these 'poor migrants' maybe ask them how they can afford iPhones?  Your 'right-on' reporter in the Calais 'Somalia' camp seemed so en-amoured with them that she missed the obvious!

Ukraine, Banking and a Pink Bus

I try to write a blog every week.  Usually I cover a single, topical subject but regular readers will know that I sometimes stray off of topic.  For regular readers I say thank you.  For me this is a way to scream at the world for the idiocies that we see around us.

This has been a strange week for news. 

We have Labour’s Pink Bus for women, the Ukraine cease-fire  and the HSBC Switzerland story.  I will try and bring these into a single narrative, please bear with me.

Running throughout the week, we have had the spectacle of the USA and the UK sitting on the sidelines, while Germany and their favourite European poodle-nation, France, negotiating with Russia and a ‘dragged to the table’ Ukraine in an effort to get a ceasefire in place.  The ceasefire would be between the Ukraine government and the separatist rebels.  You will note that these separatist rebels were not involved in these talks.  Don’t worry though, they were ably represented by Russia.  If nothing else, these talks and Russia’s seeming ability to make commitments on behalf of the rebels, lays bare the fact that these separatists are in fact fully dependent upon the Russians.  It is Russian arms and Russian artillery fired by Russian soldiers  that has made advances and forced the Ukraine government to the table.  That and the appeasers in the German dominated European Union. 

In case you have forgotten, Ukraine is, in large part, in its current state because they were led up the path by the EU.  They were sweet-talked, by the EU, into rejecting an agreement that would have pushed them towards Russia and then, when Russia flexed its muscles, the EU ran away.  They, and the US and UK then embarked upon imposing sanctions against Russia and certain Russians.  Commentators regularly tell us that these sanctions are really biting.  Coupled with the collapse in the price of oil and with it the Rouble, the Russian economy is suffering (unfortunately that then means its people as well!).

So, we have a situation where Russia has made a land grab (Crimea) and has been fomenting and arming secessionist activity in Eastern Ukraine, while at the same time, the essentially feeble sanctions are finally starting to affect Russia and what is the EU reaction?  Go to the negotiating table and concede territory and legitimacy to both the rebels and Russia’s land grab, cut the throats of the Ukrainians  and then congratulate themselves on a war averted!

And what of the USA?  Good old President Obama was in Washington and given the snowfalls hitting that part of America, he was unable to attend to other presidential  duties, such as golf, and managed to make some comment on the Ukraine.  His comments, strangely, had the potential to be helpful.  He was making noises about providing the Ukraine with a re-supply of arms.  Reverting to type though, nothing came of these fine words.  Maybe it is because America is broke and cannot afford to ‘fight the good fight’ or maybe it’s because it’s President Obama – make your own mind up!

And David Cameron?  He was in the difficult position of being in electioneering mode and having to fend-off accusations that the UK was becoming irrelevant on the world stage because the UK wasn’t at these talks.  Possibly, Cameron could see where this whole shabby exercise would end and the idea of being a party to the sell-out of Ukraine, was too much for him to stomach or possibly he was focused on home-front issues.

Home-front issues, for Cameron are now all about the General Election to be held in May. 

He received a boost from Harriet Harman, Labour’s equality obsessed, deputy leader (so obsessed that rumours abound that she planned to change her name to Harriet Harperson!).  I have to use the word 'harpy' to describe her because all other thoughts and words might breach this blog’s no offensive language rule.

Anyway, this harpy has hit on the wheeze of having a pink bus which will travel around the UK, visiting marginal seats and then opening discussions with women because she claims that Labour speaks to women’s needs and wants to listen to women and their problems.  In spite of all, I repeat, all polling data suggesting that men and women rate the economy, NHS, immigration and education as high priority issues for them and their families, Harriet is expecting to be chatting aboard the, immediately and appropriately named 'Barbie Bus’, about domestic abuse as the number one issue affecting women. 

Of course domestic abuse is awful but does Labour really believe that this is the key problem facing women today?   All women?

One of the first, all-women, conversations that took place was gate-crashed by, horror of horrors, a man.  He was politely indignant that his genital arrangements caused him to be not worthy of voicing an opinion or to be listened to. 

Not sure I understand this approach by Labour.  Will women flock to the Barbie Bus and abandon the key issues that they have previously told pollsters that influence them and talk about an issue which, at the end of the day, politicians can do little about – domestic abuse.  I mean that does anyone think that more laws, from Westminster, will solve this particular problem?  Yes it is awful but of national importance?  I am reminded of President Obama's and John Kerry's claim that the number one danger facing the USA is 'climate change'.  Not Al Qaeda, not Islamic State, not illegal immigrants, not Ebola, not a jobs-absent recovery - no, climate change!  And now this fool is posting selfies all over the internet!  Boy, when Americans go for tokenism and ignore Dr Marting Luther King's comments about judging people on their character and not the colour of their skin, you go all out!

How then will this sexism play with Labour’s male voters?  Will they feel excluded and desert in droves?  Will they head to UKIP or to the Conservatives?  Or will they maybe just stay at home?  We will see.

They say in politics that you need to be lucky,  Labour got lucky and managed to get the Barbie Bus behind themselves with the breaking of the HSBC story.  This bank has a branch office in Switzerland  and – cue shock! cue horror!  Some British people had accounts there.  Labour played a good game on this one, aided as always by the ignorant and biased BBC and other media.  Labour seem to contend that any Brit  with an account in Switzerland  only has one for nefarious purposes – as in, tax evasion.  It produces no proof that this is so, it just throws the mud and some sticks.  Millions in taxes are being dodged they claim.  Even if that were true, the amounts that are being spoken of, are but a drop in the ocean relative to the spending of the current government leave alone of any future Labour government (is there something smaller than a drop in the ocean?)

Labours problem with HSBC is that while they can bang on about it, they need to be careful.  Already there are rumblings and stones being uncovered about the careful inheritance tax planning carried out by the Miliband family, following the death of the father of Ed and David.  This communist died and left the family with property that would cause the boys tax problems - as in lots of it to pay.  So they arranged for something called a deed of variation, which, if I understand correctly, allowed their now dead father to change the will and gift them parts of the property such that taxes were much reduced.  All perfectly legal but as said before, hypocrisy is rankest at the higher levels of government!

I will be absent from the UK for much of the election campaign - but of course will be voting - so my comments and this blog will be filtered through time, distance and a biased media.  Caveat emptor!

Have a good week!

Obama's problem with the C word

Don’t worry, this won’t be a foul-mouthed tirade.  I don’t allow that on this blog.

No, the C word is the one that President Obama seems to have such difficulty with.  C stands for Christianity.  And it is the word that he has a problem with, not the letter.  He managed to use the letter C when he equated the actions of ISIS terrorists to those of the Crusaders from more than 900 years ago!  He doesn’t have a problem with the letter I, as it relates to 'the inquisition', which he also linked as some kind of equivalence to the ISIS terrorists.

Obama has other difficulties with the letter I.  He is unable to use the phrase Islamic  and Terrorists together.

Consider:

• 
  
• The 9/11 bombers in the USA were Muslims.
• The 7/7 bombers in London, were Muslims
• The Madrid train bombers were Muslims
• The Charlie Hebdo killers were Muslims
• The Bali bombers were Muslim
• The Mumbai killers were Muslim
• The killers of more than 2,000 inhabitants of the Nigerian town of Baga, are Muslim
• The killers of hostages held by ISIS, are Muslim
• The killer of Fusilier Lee Rigby, on the streets of London, are Muslim
• The Boston Marathon bombers are/were Muslim

The list goes horrifically on and on and provides evidence of many terrorist atrocities and all carried out by Muslims.

And yet, President Obama, aided it has to be said by some other political leaders, continue, to insist that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’.  Obama is unable to specify that these people are Islamic Terrorists.  Astute observers will note that the current problem child calls itself Islamic State or Islamic State in Syria or as Obama insists on calling them, Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) and that all of these names make absolute and clear reference to the religion of the followers.  It is abundantly clear by the names used that these are Islamic.  Delve a little further and see the aims of this organisation (howsoever named) and it is crystal clear that the over-arching goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.  A caliphate where only one religion, Islam, is allowed.  A caliphate where Sharia law, based on interpretations of the Quran, the holy book of the religion of Islam, applies.   A caliphate where freedoms are severely curtailed and all are subservient to the religion of Islam.

Could it be that Obama doesn’t call a ‘spade a spade’ or a Muslim bomber or killer, an Islamic terrorist because he doesn’t want to offend his buddies in Saudi Arabia?  The Saudi government has long been seen as the major backer of Al Qaeda and its now successor, ISIS.  The Saudi’s , who follow the Sunni strand of Islam, see AQ and ISIS as a potent weapon in their struggle for regional dominance against Shiite Iran.

Whatever the reason, Obama just cannot bring himself to call these barbarians, Islamic Terrorists   Perhaps, the reason is, as so often claimed in the Twittersphere, Obama himself is a Muslim.  The latest rumour is that the ring that Obama wears carries, in Arabic script the Shahada – the Islamic creed – engraved upon it.

This posting is primarily aimed at any political leaders out there.  At what point will you publicly distance yourself from Obama and those who still maintain that Islam is the 'religion of peace'?   When will you take that disagreement further and actively oppose these fools?  Oh, and such opposition must be on the broadest possible front - not just on foreign affairs but on every issue - budget - oppose, endorsement of appointees, oppose, shut down the government.

If you're not a Western political leader, maybe pass this onto your leaders and get them to start the fight-back.

If you're a Muslim, when will you aggressively attack, with the emphasis on aggressively, your co-religionists?  King Abdullah of Jordan has started to show the way but even he needs to get his country on a war-footing against both ISIS and radical Islam.  Someone on Twitter suggested that the difference between a radical Islamist and and 'regular Islamist is that the Radical Islamist wants to cut off your head, while the 'regular' Islamist wants the Radical Islamist to behead the infidel.  If Islam is truly a 'religion of peace' then Islam needs to reform and Islam needs to clean its house and Western leaders need to cease the appeasement of Islamic terrorists and the nations that support them.

2015 - Prospects and ....

I couldn't think of a word for the other aspect of what we face in 2015 but maybe by the end of this we will have it.

Prospects first then.

The new US Congress convenes in January and has a Republican majority in both houses.  I think that has the prospect of being a good thing.  The newly elected members will join incumbents but critically, these 'newbies' will bring with them a clear mandate from the electorate.  Change is needed in Washington.  That means that Congress needs to clean-up its act.  Less 'pork-barrel' politics and more 'American' policies.  Policies that will start to restore America in the eyes of its friends and its foes.

'American' policies?  Well that means no amnesty for a start.  It is 'American' to emigrate to the USA via legal routes not by hopping over the border accompanied by disease-ridden narco-gang members and others who believe that laws are meant for someone else.

So, no Amnesty and a clear statement to the Department of Homeland Security - Congress will de-fund you if you do not secure the border - that's the Southern border, in case you don't know which one.  Congress will de-fund HS if you don't start deporting, in significant numbers all of those illegal immigrants that entered the US during 2014 and then work backwards, year by year.  Who knows?  In the process you may well come across some Al Qaeda  or ISIS terrorists, on the way.  It's a pretty safe bet that some used the chaos that Obama created on the border, to infiltrate the country.

Again, no Amnesty.  Can't say it often enough.

Obamacare will really kick-in in 2015 and it is the duty of Congress to start the process of repeal and then accelerate so that this is done by the end of 2015 and America enters the 2016 election year with a clear choice between Democrats (who voted the ACA through without even reading it!) and want to reinstate it and with Republicans who oppose such socialistic but more importantly unworkable legislation.

Spending has to be reduced.  The people get it but clearly Speaker John Boehner doesn't.  Obama  has always been a lost cause.  Indeed, the same can be said of all Democrats.  Margaret Thatcher once said 'the trouble with Socialists is that eventually they run out of other people's money to spend' and that is where today, America finds itself.  So as well as spending needing to be drastically reduced, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must be replaced.  Rep. Trey Gowdy and Senator Ted Cruz or Senator Mike Lee would seem to be candidates that best represent the views of the Republican voters.

Spending reductions are also a prospect for British voters - though, (and this is where that .... creeps in) there is every prospect that the parties in the upcoming General Election will fall over themselves to offer money Britain doesn't have and hasn't earned as electoral bribes.  They don't call it 'pork-barrel' in the UK but the result is the same - unaffordable spending fueled by debt.

A gloomy prospect (there's that ...... again) is that the Scottish Nationalists (SNP)  may hold the balance of power and strike an underhand deal with Labour surrounding yet more transfer of powers to the devolved Scottish Parliament.  It is unbelievable but no less true that the SNP who so solidly lost the Scottish Indpendence Referendum now face the prospect of being the major Scottish influence at Westminster.  It says everything about Labour and their woeful leader, Ed Miliband, that we come to this pass.

Incidentally, while we are on the subject of the SNP, how on earth can they possibly be in the ascendancy when they made such huge play about an independent Scotland's prospects but all based on oil at the 'conservatively' set price of $113/bbl.  Oil is currently half that price and all commentators see oil at greater than $100 no time in the near future!

With Labour and the SNP squeezing on one side the Conservatives face the grim prospect of losing power as they are also being assailed from UKIP.  I think that the electorate distrust the Conservatives on Europe and I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the Conservatives wouldn't mind losing the election so that the question of an EU referendum becomes someone elses responsibility/headache.

If the Conservatives do regain power, it will likely be to lead a minority government.  That though doesn't preclude the greatest prospect which is deep and meaningful cuts in UK public spending.  This is long overdue and I sense would receive strong support from the working population, if it was properly presented showing the choice between further indebtedness and future impoverishment and an affordable future for Britain and its children.

Back to prospects and  for the first time in a long time,  Europe and immigration will likely be 'front and centre' in the UK General Election and there is every prospect that contra-opinions to those of the metropolitan elite and to the ruling bureaucracy (the real rulers) will  be heard and perhaps a reasoned debate might ensue - we can but hope!

Of course, an easy prospect for the UK is that the key issue will be the economy and its prospects.  These will surely be enhanced if the austerity policies of the Conservatives, however anemic they have so far been, are preferred to those of the profligate debt-fueled spending proposed by Labour.

So, Prospects and .... abound and the above are just a foretaste but we need the following - and by we, I mean not just the USA and the UK, I mean the 'West' needs the following:

US Republicans to follow the electorate given mandate - no amnesty, reduce America's deficit (debt is perhaps too much to ask for), secure the border and start to repair relations with America's natural allies.  The latter will mean abandoning some of Obama's newly close Islamic allies but so be it.

UK Conservatives go forward on an economic plan founded upon lower taxes and much lower public spending.  Also be clear on Europe, if the UK can't get what it wants from a renegotiation, then we will leave.  It is asinine to go into a renegotiation of terms saying that even if the UK doesn't get what it wants, then the Conservatives will still campaign for continued membership.  Oh and one of those things has to be reduced immigration and zero, nada, zilch welfare benefits for any non-Britons.

So, no amnesty, spending cuts and then we can forget about those ........

CIA Torture - Means and Ends

Not sure if it counts as one of those weird coincidences that Life throws at us but I was just reading the late but still great Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays and reviews, called Arguably and came upon his piece for Vanity Fair, from August 2008.

In this essay, Hitchens recalls how he undertook an experience of 'waterboarding', courtesy of some Special Forces veterans.  These men had previously completed SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training, part of which included how to resist various forms of torture, one of which was 'waterboarding'.

Hitchens relates that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the so called 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks had supposedly endured 'waterboarding' for two minutes.  Hitchens suspected that his own period was much less but hearing that KSM may have survived a much shorter period, he felt somewhat better.

Hitchens talks of the perpetrators of his 'waterboarding' which he clearly considers as torture, in somewhat awed tones.

"This group regards itself as out on the front line in defense of a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep.  These heroes stay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch.  Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution.  As they have just tried to demonstrate to me (Hitchens), a man who has been 'waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time.  When contrasted to actual torture, 'waterboarding' is more like foreplay.  No thumbscrews, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack.  Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl?  On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame a diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down.  I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."

Hitchens being balanced, goes on to proffer the views of Mr Malcolm Nance, someone involved with SERE since 19997.  A man who would never be considered a 'bleeding heart liberal', Mr Nance also considers 'waterboarding' as torture and questions the reliability and value  of information so obtained.  He also goes on to suggest that because some of these captives that were 'waterborded', were subsequently released, then these have provided the terrorists with a training exercise which perhaps goes some way to explaining its subsequent inefficiency in actually gaining useful information.

Anyway, all of this is to lead up to the dilemma that we face.

The USA and the UK are among nations that condemn torture and punish this whenever we get the opportunity.   How then to accept the notion that the intelligence services have been using methods which can only be described as torture, to gain information?

Can the 'ends' - life-saving information on terrorist activities - be justified when the 'means' are based on what we consider to be horrific and criminal acts - torture?

The dilemma is compounded by the type of war that is now being waged.  The USA and UK and other 'allies' are fighting an enemy (ISIS, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc., etc.) which doesn't play by the same rules that are applied to them.  

Indeed, consider the case of Israel and HAMAS.  Israel considers, and all evidence suggests that they are correct, that they are under attack from Gaza by HAMAS.  Israel sees their actions as protecting their people - a fundamental requirement of any government.  HAMAS though take a more global viewpoint on its duties to its 'people'.  To HAMAS, placing rocket launchers in civilian areas, close to schools and hospitals is part and parcel of waging war against Israel.  This then presents Israel with a major dilemma.  Their dilemma is made worse by a media that either allows itself to be manipulated by HAMAS and fellow terrorist organizations or simply accepts the 'party-line' from the terrorists, without ever questioning them or applying to HAMAS, the same standards with which they judge Israel.

So how can the intelligence services fight the 'war on terror' with 'one hand tied behind their back'?  I say that not to specifically condone torture but to put in play the thought that if we are to make progress in this 'war', then we must do so using all available weapons.

It seems to me that we have to endorse some methods, which under normal circumstances, we would abhor, simply because our enemies do not expect us to.

I comfort myself that there are 'checks and balances' within the democratic system to keep the intelligence services under scrutiny.  I don't think it is naive to say that while we do have the power of the ballot box, we can control those who would perform these acts on our behalf.  Equally, I do not see that we have any choice but to ask these men to act as we want them to but we must not then indict and prosecute them if they do so.   That is, we expect politicians to set the 'rules' on our behalf and then so long as the intelligence services stay within those bounds, we cannot apply 'official' laws against them.

Further, it is wrong, on so many levels, for a subsequent administration to seek to re-write rules of engagement, down the road.  One doesn't have high expectations of President Obama but his abandoning of his intelligence services, indeed his throwing of them to the liberal 'West-hating' media, is a new low, even for an administration that  has already plumbed heretofore unseen depths.

So perhaps I have answered my own dilemma, at least for me.  Torture can be acceptable as a means to and end, so long as that process is democratically controlled.  What think you?

Oh and by the way, do buy Christopher Hitchens book Arguably.  His views don't really conform to a stereotype but they are always thought provoking.

The American idea of friendship?

I don't have a Webster's dictionary to hand but would struggle to believe the definition of friendship includes anything like the way the current US administration (and recent former ones!) is treating its friends and allies.

I am not a gambling man but I would bet the equity I have in my house, that Angela Merkel is not plotting the overthrow of Western civilization and its replacement with a Sharia compliant caliphate,  with Al Qaeda.  Does anybody really think that Francois Hollande has the time for such plotting?  Thinking up more and more daft taxes to impose on his benighted citizens takes up so much time, there is too little left for proper plotting.

And yet......  If the leaks from Edward Snowden are to be believed, then that is what the folks in the US Administration think is happening.  Somehow these people have got it into their heads that the 'war on terror' requires them to spy on whomever they choose.  Prime Minister of Spain?  You bet! UN Secretary General? Of course!  Millions of Americans? For sure!  

How do I know that is what they're thinking?  Well how else can the USA possibly justify spying on its friends?  The only justifiable reason to spy on Merkel would be to get hold of her Sauerkraut recipe, which is said to produce a result that is only surpassed by her Lebkuchen one (Lidl and Aldi both follow this, trust me, but don't ask me how I know!) 

Those of us, of a certain age, remember the 'cold war'.  Amongst us intelligent ones (as opposed to the fellow travelers), we always understood that certain actions, let's call them spying, would be undertaken on our behalf, to protect us.  I am sure that we also suspected (and condoned) the fact that sometimes our enemies - foreign or domestic - might be legitimate targets and even that they could end-up being killed by our security services.  It was a war and as such casualties are inevitable. 

Part of the acceptance came from a belief that our system was better than theirs.  That we had freedoms that were worth protecting and fighting for and that sometimes playing a little dirty was required and therefore acceptable. 

Now though our 'system' is coming to look a whole lot like the systems of control that we, in the West, fought against.  In the UK, we have a Conservative-led coalition (or at least on paper, Conservative-led) seeking to impose severe restraints on press freedom.  From the USA we have widespread snooping on foreigner's mail and phone calls - OK to some US readers that might be acceptable - they're foreigners, after all - but we also have US citizens having their own mail and phone calls snooped on.  In the USA you don't have the Stasi on street corners asking you for your papers, but you do have drones flying overhead and you being watched by people in darkened rooms, simply because they can.

And that really is it.  The NSA and it's co-conspirator, the British GCHQ, do all of this snooping because they have the technology to do so.  They are boys with toys and have to use them.  They are the kid that gets a remote controlled helicopter for his birthday and then has to use it to 'buzz' his neighbour's house simply because he has this new toy and since his dad got it for him, he is going to make sure his son's 'constitutional right' to fly the toy are protected.

We are told that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are really smart and getting smarter and more sophisticated.  While many of their weapons are crude - suicide bombs, for example - they are an implacable and intelligent enemy.  So, how many of them, do you think, are getting on their cell phones and directing their 'martyrs' to the next atrocity or sending e-mails detailing their upcoming plans?  I suspect that because these terrorists are well aware of the counter-measures used by the West, such as snooping, then they resort to old-fashioned methods of communication like a whispered conversation in a crowded street or behind locked doors.  

And then there is the hypocrisy.  Remember how the USA was enraged when it discovered that its erstwhile allies, the Israelis, were spying on it?  I am sure that at the time, there would have been Senators and Representatives and other 'nodding heads' condemning this as being unfriendly, 'these are not the actions, we, Americans would expect of a nation that we consider, a friend' etc..

Going back to those domestic drones for a moment, consider this.  One of America's contributions to the English language is the term 'going postal' - where someone becomes so deranged at slights, real or imagined, that they just load-up on guns and ammo and go to the scene of their humiliation and start killing all and sundry.   Think though about those guys in the darkened rooms, looking at these monitors.  Think about them just maybe 'losing it'.  That cheerleader that said no, when she was asked to the prom?  The number plate of her car can be read from 25,000 feet.  That 'jock' who always gave lesser beings and nerds a wedgie?  His cell phone can be tracked, wherever he is.  And hey, the guy in the darkened room has rapid fire weapons and a hellfire missile or two.   But Americans have nothing to fear.  It couldn't happen in America right?  There are controls on all this kind of stuff, aren't there?

 Bottom line is that friends don't spy on friends.  That for freedom to have any meaning, a government shouldn't be spying on it's own people.  Terrorism isn't just about bombs and assassinations - it is also about creating a climate of fear such that the values that we hold dear and which are anathema to the terrorists, we agree to relinquish, in the belief that it's part of the 'war on terror' and yet, by us doing so, the terrorists win!      

Syria - The Vote! Questions for the Syrian opposition.

Well done to the UK Parliament! 

The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable.  Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte! 

What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government.  And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.

Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.

At best the House of Commons vote was premature.  The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime. 

Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action?  By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war.  The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks. 

Just think about it!  They are losing.  They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do?  How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed?  A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV

In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table.  And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN.  Everything is tainted. 

The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc.. 

The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale.  Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though.  David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people.  So why did the previous ten  attacks not warrant action or comment? 

I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water. 

The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing.  It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution!  That though is one outcome of Syria.  Strange bed-fellows abound.  Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'.  This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him.  Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda.  These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy.  Exactly what do the 'rebels' want?  Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?  

So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks!   Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility.  And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.

I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria.  To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!

So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK.  And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!

Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!

Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%

Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!

What does the USA get out of Syria intervention

What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?

Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help?  These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values.  Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria.  There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks.  These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy.  The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban.  Is this really what America wants?

Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so.  How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance?  Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it?  Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away?  How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?

What is the end game here?  Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.

The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.  The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.

In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels.  The upshot?  The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.  Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country. 

The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing.  The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability.  Does Obama hate Israel that much?

And then there is Turkey.  Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted.  Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.

Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong.  You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted.  Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week.  The French were saying these weeks ago.  OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ...   Or is that just me being cynical?
 

Abu Qatada - Deport the family

The UK government is getting tied in knots by the ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that the UK cannot deport a man who has been labelled as 'extremely dangerous' because, Jordan, the country to which we want to deport him, may have used torture to procure evidence leading to convictions. and might 'probably' (their words) do so in his case.

I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family?  There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?

I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government? 

Just as importantly, how can we let them do so?  The first duty of a government must be to protect its people!  That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.

I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority.  My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended.  These people do not play by the same rules as us.  Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby!  While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal!  What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules.  Usually at the tax-payers expense!!

I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world  that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.    

Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!).  Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it.  So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!

The ECHR ruling is patently wrong.  It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!

However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg.  So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada.  And start by deporting his family.

Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family?  Who funds his legal challenges?  MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.

Enough!!