► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Realpolitik and The Racial Hire

by coldwarrior ( 60 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, History, Open thread, Politics at September 30th, 2015 - 7:00 am

While the rest of the world plays Realpolitik America wallows in with it’s HR-izational, least qualified man in the room, racial hire the rest of the world is eating out lunch. YAY! We ticked the African-American Box! We are soooo virtuous!

Back in the day, when real qualified men ran the joint, we would have propped up Assad versus ISIS and done other things that are in our national interest. However, our racial hire is bringing down our organization. It’s funny, I watched the same thing happen at a former management job I had years ago. Budgets go out the window, debt is pilled up and the organization becomes weaker vis-a-vis the competition…but the Racial Hire box got ticked!


Taking the podium as the morning’s second speaker (after Brazilian president Dilma Roussef), Barack Obama described a turbulent world, balanced precariously between stability and chaos. At this critical juncture, the nations of the world had a choice to make. Would they rededicate themselves to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded seventy years ago, seeking shared security, prosperity, and human dignity through international cooperation? Or would they follow the siren song of those who still believe that “might makes right,” both at home and abroad? Implicitly referring to Russia and China, the President Obama castigated oppressive regimes that seek the illusory order of tyranny, the “strongmen” who refuse to trust their people, who seek vainly to strangle the idea of freedom, and by their actions simply spark the “revolutions of tomorrow.” Abroad, those same governments too often abandon the international rule of law for the law of the jungle, ignoring that power politics inevitably backfires in an “integrated world.” Consider, for example, Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which had brought such economic pain (in the form of sanctions) to Russia itself. How much better would Russia have fared, the president asked, had it simply pursued its goals through diplomatic means? Not for the first time, Obama seemed genuinely perplexed that Putin-or any other world leader-would regard realpolitik as a legitimate form of statecraft, rather than an atavism no longer appropriate in a world of shared transnational threats like climate change, Ebola, and uncontrolled migration.

The problem, of course, is that Putin never got the memo that power politics is obsolete. In recent days the Obama administration has repeatedly warned that Russia’s use of the UN Security Council (UNSC) veto in Syria threatens the credibility of that body. In his own speech from the UN podium, Putin reminded listeners that the postwar international order agreed at Yalta was founded explicitly on big power privilege. Each of the five permanent members (the P5) was endowed with a veto precisely to prevent a subset of the P5 from using the UNSC’s enforcement power contrary to the will of one of its members. Putin also suggested that the United Nations should think long and hard before undermining or infringing upon state sovereignty through military interventions or the “export” of democratic revolutions. As evidence, one need look no further than the Middle East and North Africa. According to Putin, “instead of the triumph of democracy and progress we got violence, poverty and a social disaster,” as outside interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria had created “power vacuums” filled by “extremists and terrorists,” most notably the Islamic State. Implicitly addressing the West, he asked: “Those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?” Rather than continuing down this path, the time had come for the international community to form “a broad international coalition against terrorism,” akin to the one that defeated Hitler seventy years ago. The government of Syria, he insisted, must be part of this coalition against the Islamic State.

Putin’s realpolitik was also on display in his discussion of the Ukraine conflict (a topic that caused the Ukrainian delegation to the UN to walk out). It was NATO’s expansion into the post-Soviet space, he claimed, had created a “logic of confrontation” between “West” and “East.” Indeed, he implied, the West had engineered the coup against Yanukovich that set off Ukraine’s turmoil, seeking to force its exclusive alignment with the West. This was clearly too much for Moscow. As he made clear in his 60 minutes interview with Charlie Rose on Sunday evening, Putin is determined to protect the rights of the twenty-five million Russian compatriots that the collapse of the Soviet Union left outside of Russia’s borders. In sum, Russia will insist upon some degree of sphere of influence over its “near abroad.”

Debt and destroyed power is the legacy of this racial hire President.

Dr Carson Is Right

by coldwarrior ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Open thread, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at September 23rd, 2015 - 7:23 am

Dr Carson’s recent comments on muslims are absolutely correct. I don’t think he went far enough but it is good to see a push-back happen against the anti-American left and muslims.  See, in my world, we treat muslims the same way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia and the like.


The Empty Outrage About Ben Carson

His critics have religious tests of their own.

Fresh from the Kim Davis controversy, during which liberals took the position that traditional Christians should no longer hold the government office of marriage clerk, liberals are denouncing Ben Carson for “bigotry” against Muslims. They piously quote the Constitution’s line from Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Of course, Carson never denied that Muslim Americans are eligible to run for office. He simply said that he wouldn’t vote for one who supported Sharia law. America’s founding fathers would have agreed.

They didn’t confuse eligibility with fitness for office. They had no problem voting against atheists and other adherents to beliefs that they deemed dangerous. The Left is pushing an idea that the founders regarded as mindless and destructive, namely, that the people are somehow constitutionally obligated to treat the religious beliefs of all candidates as equally valid, that it is somehow “un-American” for a voter to prefer a Christian candidate to a non-Christian one.

According to the contemporary definition of bigotry, which forbids any criticism of religion unless it is Christian, most of the founders were bigots. They certainly didn’t view Christianity and Islam as philosophically equal. Thomas Jefferson, who had to deal with the Barbary pirates, famously purchased a Koran not out of respect for Islam but out of wariness of it. He saw the Koran as a manual for war and sought to understand the tactics and motivations of the enemy. It is absurd to think that the founding fathers would have thought it a good idea for a historically and culturally Christian country to entrust its most powerful office to a devotee of a book that authorizes jihad against Christianity.

Contrary to the media’s extreme construction of his view, Carson isn’t taking the sweeping position that anybody who happens to be born into Islam is intrinsically unfit for the presidency. By “Muslim,” he means an adherent to Islamic orthodoxy. “Now, if someone has a Muslim background and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then, of course, they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,” he told Sean Hannity.

In other words, Carson could support a bad Muslim for the presidency but not a good one—a position that shocks liberals even as they take an identical one with respect to Christians. What is the purpose of all of their propaganda against Christianity in the public square if not to scrub it clean of good Christians, leaving only heretical nominal Christians to serve in government offices? Liberals constantly lecture Americans on the dangers of voting for “evangelical” Christians, orthodox Catholics, and other members of the dreaded “religious right.”

Somehow the religious right by the Left’s estimate doesn’t include Islam, even as its extremist eruptions make even the most tenacious sects of Christianity look tame by comparison. Liberals would sooner vote for the officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is a front group for Islamic terrorists, than Ben Carson, who has been declared by that sham PR outfit, with help from a deferential media, “unfit” for the presidency.

One wonders how long members of the chattering class, so outraged at Ben Carson for suggesting the undesirability of a Muslim presidency in America, would last under a Muslim president in the Middle East. If they turned up on a talk show in one of those countries and made equivalent remarks about the importance of a majority-Muslim population electing a Christian president, they would quickly find themselves in jail.

The more illiberal and non-Western a religion, the more liberals defend it. Browbeating Carson, they insist that the values of Islam are the values of America. Meanwhile, they define something as blameless as Christian opposition to gay marriage as “un-American,” to quote the actor Tom Hanks.


Please Read the Rest Here

Labour Goes Socialist

by coldwarrior ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Elections, Open thread, Politics, Socialism, UK at September 14th, 2015 - 8:27 am

The Labour Party in England has decided to move very far left by electing the socialist Jeremy Corbyn to its top slot. Why on earth would they put this unelectable commie in the leadership role? The following is an interesting article on what happened.

Does anyone see a comparison to Bernie Sanders and the Democrats?

5 takeaways on the Labour voteBe careful what you wish for.

By Mary Ann Sieghart

9/12/15, 1:38 PM CET

Updated 9/14/15, 10:36 AM CET

Over the past year or so, British politics has detonated bombshell after bombshell, laying waste to pollsters and pundits alike. There was the Scottish National Party landslide north of the border, the extraordinary victory by the U.K. Independence Party at the European elections, and then, of course, the wholly unexpected Conservative overall majority at the general election.

But nothing, nothing compares with this.

Not even Jeremy Corbyn himself would have dreamed six months ago that he would be leader of the Labour Party. There’s almost always a far-left candidate in these races, who is resigned to limping in last. Not for more than 35 years has he sprinted in first. So what can we take away from this contest? What does it tell us about the state of British politics and the future of the Labour Party?

1. For a time it looked as if Britain were relatively immune to the political convulsions that have occurred in Continental Europe since the financial crisis. No new parties, such as Greece’s Syriza or Spain’s Podemos, emerged. Even UKIP was nowhere near as successful as the National Front in France. There was an anti-Establishment, insurgent mood, but nowhere beyond UKIP for it to go. Now, it has been channeled into one of the mainstream parties, with unforeseeable consequences.

2. The mainstream candidates in this race were not just uninspiring — though they were — but bad at mobilizing too. Admittedly Corbyn had the help of the big trade unions, but he was also savvier at harnessing the new enthusiasm he aroused. He was the only one of the four leadership candidates to embed on his website the link that allowed people to sign up for £3 as registered supporters of the party and vote. Simple, really, but a sign that the other three were as poor at the mechanics of politics as they were at the message.

The moderate mainstream had better watch out now. The Left has always been more adept at machine politics: packing committees and changing party rules to suit their ends. In the 1980s, they did it with candidate selection, to get more left-wing members into Parliament. They also introduced mandatory re-selection of sitting MPs, allowing them to be chucked out by their own activists between elections if they didn’t toe the line. There’s been chatter that this might be brought back. If it is, the Labour Party will no longer represent voters on the center-Left and will become unelectable for a generation – an outcome that will dismay MPs, but not the people who voted for Corbyn and prefer principle to power.

3. Unlike in 1980, when the equally left-wing Michael Foot became Labour leader through a vote of his MPs, Corbyn has been elected against the wishes of his parliamentary party. He has only about 15 whole-hearted supporters in Parliament, which means that more than 90 percent of his MPs oppose him. He needs to appoint a Shadow Cabinet of 26 MPs, and about 70 more shadow ministers. Where will he find them? What will they say when they are asked on TV whether they think he will make a good prime minister? And will the 200 or so MPs who oppose him feel obliged to obey the party whip when they are led by a man who has until now been the most disloyal MP on their benches? This is likely to become an unleadable party, led by an unelectable leader.

4. The party is committed to putting power in the hands of the many not the few, but it is now in danger of mistaking the ardor of a few for the enthusiasm of the many. Only 0.5 percent of the British electorate voted for Corbyn. Yes, those who were motivated to sign up for this election were energized by his message, but the vast majority of voters, who only think about politics once every five years, are way to the Right of him. Yet another poll came out this week showing that Labour lost the last election because people didn’t trust it to borrow and spend responsibly. You can multiply those doubts a thousandfold now. As a result, a gap has opened up in the center of British politics. Once it was filled by Tony Blair, then by the Liberal Democrats. Now it is the Conservatives’ for the asking. The Tories have already recognized this and are touting themselves as the party of the workers. Expect them to occupy this ground very happily — and to scoop up the millions of voters camped there.

5. When Ed Miliband introduced these rules for the leadership election, he had a vision of a new politics that engaged the disenchanted, led to a new era of political participation, enthused the young and brought idealism and passion back to Westminster. He has achieved all that and more — but to what end? In politics, as in many other walks of life, you have to be very careful what you wish for.

Captain America to The Rescue!

by coldwarrior ( 78 Comments › )
Filed under immigration, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Multiculturalism, Open thread, Political Correctness, Terrorism at August 26th, 2015 - 7:00 am

An interesting commentary from our British Cousins:

Allison Pearson: We can’t always rely on Captain America to get us out of trouble

After hero tourists prevented a massacre on a French train, Allison Pearson says: are we really going to sit on our hands and wait for some Islamist maniac to get lucky and commit another massacre in our country?

Skarlato spent 10 days in Germany before meeting up in Amsterdam with a friend earlier this week before they boarded the train to France on Friday

Alek Skarlatos’s father said of his son’s bravery: ‘It’s better to die like a lion than be slaughtered like sheep. And this terrorist coward deserved what he got’ Photo: Nick Razzell

There is something thrilling about that unhesitating call to action, and the way in which the three young Americans, aided by British IT consultant Chris Norman, did what had to be done without, as the citation would say, any regard for their personal safety. In so doing, they undoubtedly saved the lives of many of the 550 helpless people on that train. Stone, who had his thumb almost severed by a box cutter, even found time to staunch the profusely bleeding throat wound of another passenger, earning himself the nickname “Captain America”.

The stirring simplicity of “Let’s go, go!” recalls the final words of Todd Beamer. A software salesman who was on United Flight 93 on 9/11 when the plane was hijacked, Beamer realised that the terrorists planned to fly the aircraft into a target. With several fellow passengers, he decided to storm the cockpit. After reciting the 23rd Psalm, Beamer can be heard on a recording quite clearly addressing his impromptu band of brothers: “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

Not everyone who finds themselves in the valley of the shadow of death can summon such can-do courage. French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was with his girlfriend and two children on the Paris train, reports that Thalys train staff barricaded themselves inside a work car after fleeing from the gunman. “As screaming passengers pounded on the locked doors, nobody replied,” Anglade said, adding that “it was terrible and unbearable. For us it was inhuman.”

Chris NormanChris Norman  Photo: Reuters

Until quite recently, if you typed “French military victories” into Google, up would come the question: “Do you mean French military defeats?”

Like most good jokes, it contains a grain of truth. As if to draw a veil over the train staff’s cowardice and over the embarrassing fact that French police had been warned that the gunman, Ayoub El-Khazzani, was a possible threat, President Hollande was quick to award the Legion d’Honneur to the four foreign heroes. The whole thing felt hurried through, as though the heroism of their actions should be kept to the fore, allowing more troubling aspects of the story – what the hell was a suspected jihadist doing wandering around? – to be pushed conveniently to one side

“You have shown us,” said Hollande, “that, faced with terror, we have the power to resist. You have given us a lesson in courage, in will, and therefore in hope.”

Fine words – but how evasive and hollow they sounded. The brutal fact remains that an appalling massacre on European soil was only averted last Friday thanks to the intervention of three random American tourists – the trio very nearly didn’t take that train – and one British grandfather who thought he was going to be killed and would rather die “doing something”.

Europe has no answer to the metastasising cancer of Islamist terror, and we can hardly rely on Captain America to show up every time a fanatic decides to turn his weapons on us. Just imagine how many health and safety forms in triplicate a British railway employee would need to fill in before apprehending a bare-chested Moroccan gentleman with an AK47. Indeed, any desperate lunge to disarm the guy might well have been viewed as Islamophobic.

This is deadly serious. Counterterrorism officers in Spain warned on Monday that about 800 Islamist extremists, who have returned from Syria or Iraq after being recruited by Islamic State, are preparing to launch attacks on the Continent. At least 350 Britons have returned from fighting in the region, and our own security services acknowledge that some are plotting attacks in the UK.

U.S. serviceman Spencer Stone departs the Clinique Lille Sud, which specializes in hand injuries, in Lesquin, France‘Stone, who had his thumb almost severed by a box cutter, even found time to staunch the profusely bleeding throat wound of another passenger, earning himself the nickname Captain America’  Photo: Reuters

Are we really going to sit on our hands and wait for some Islamist maniac to get lucky and commit another massacre like 7/7 in our country? Or are our leaders going to finally grow a pair and start internment of suspected jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq?

Listen to the words of Emanuel Skarlatos, the father of National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos. Reflecting on his son’s bravery, Skarlatos told MSNBC: “It’s better to die like a lion than be slaughtered like sheep. And this terrorist coward deserved what he got, and the PC crowd needs to recognise terrorism for what it is.”

I reckon the British people are with Skarlatos senior and junior on this. There would be huge popular support for internment of individuals who have declared war on our way of life or for their passports to be cancelled, preventing their return to these islands. Their numbers are simply too great for the security services to monitor them properly. The threat to civil liberties is outweighed by the threat to innocent people.