► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘UK’ Category

Scots Fallout

by coldwarrior ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread, Politics, UK at September 19th, 2014 - 3:00 pm

A postmortem on the Scot’s devolution decision:

After Scotland, something fundamental has to change – and will change

Our present constitutional settlement is not merely unacceptable; it is broken.

by Jason Cowley Published  

Our present constitutional settlement is not merely unacceptable; it is broken.
A discarded Yes sticker lies on cobble stones along the Royal Mile after the people of Scotland voted no to independence on September 19, 2014 in Edinburgh. Photograph: Getty Images.

In the days after 5 September, when a poll put Yes Scotland ahead for the first time in the referendum campaign, we witnessed something remarkable, even unprecedented, in recent decades – the British political elite scrambling in panic as they belatedly understood that the ground beneath them was moving and drastic action was required. In response they began making policy on the run, hastily promising further powers to Scotland and mobilizing whatever forces they could, especially big business, to help pull the Union back from the brink.

Had Scotland voted Yes, David Cameron would surely have been forced to resign as the prime minister who lost Scotland and presided over the break up of Great Britain. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, might well have been forced to stand down as well in what would have been an ensuing constitutional crisis.

In the event, Scotland narrowly voted No and now an opportunity exists to reconfigure the multinational United Kingdom to the benefit of all of us living in these islands. Clearly the status quo is unacceptable, not only to the large number of people in Scotland who voted for independence. Our present constitutional settlement is not merely unacceptable; it is broken, as David Cameron acknowledged when he spoke outside Downing Street once the final result was known. Whether the UK is reconfigured as a fully federal or quasi-federal state, something fundamental has to change and will change. We are entering a period of profound constitutional upheaval.

It will not be enough to offer more devolution to Scotland as the three main party leaders did in the final, desperate days of the campaign, however inchoate. The question of devolution in England has to be addressed as well. Cameron spoke of the need to address the West Lothian question  – English votes on English laws –  but should we have an English parliament or perhaps the introduction of regional assemblies under a new federal structure? Cameron did not mention this but the House of Lords needs to become a fully elected second chamber or be abolished altogether. What too of further powers for Wales and Northern Ireland? These are momentous times.

One of the most startling interventions during the final days of the campaign was made of course by Gordon Brown, the former Labour prime minister, who returned dramatically to frontline politics as the cross-party Better Together campaign floundered. In a series of speeches, consciously echoing Gladstone, he promised “home rule for Scotland”, even if there was no consensus on what was actually being offered and how it would affect the other nations in these islands, not least England.

At times it seemed as if the former Labour prime minister was dictating policy to his successor, who, because of the decisive defeat of the Conservatives in Scotland, was rendered virtually mute during the long campaign and was left at the end pleading plaintively with Scots “not to go”. It was desperate stuff and one expects Cameron’s party to punish his weakness in the months ahead.

What we witnessed in Scotland during the campaign, especially in those final weeks, was an extraordinary democratic awakening. An ancient nation was asking fundamental questions about identity, purpose and sovereignty, and people were as animated as they were well informed. The SNP operates a formidable and disciplined campaigning machine but Yes Scotland amounted to much more than Alex Salmond and his happy band of followers; it was a broad, vibrant coalition of pro-independence groupings.

What the referendum campaign demonstrated was that, in the right circumstances and when people believe that something truly significant is at stake and that their vote matters, they care passionately. At a time when fewer and fewer of us are members of political parties, nearly 4.3 million registered to vote, 97 per cent of those eligible. Overall turnout was 86 per cent, testament to a nation’s engagement and a direct challenge to a broken political system.

But how now to capture and harness the energies that were unleashed during a referendum campaign in Scotland that shook the foundations of the British state, stunned a complacent elite and came so close to shattering the 307-year-old Union?

And this much I know: unless there is far-reaching constitutional reform, there will be a second Scottish independence referendum before too long.

It’s going to be interesting to watch.

 

Scotland!

by coldwarrior ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under government, Open thread, Politics, UK at September 17th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Aye! The Vote for or against independence from the United Kingdom is Thursday, the 18th. I would have to say that if I were allowed to vote, It would be ‘YES!’. Succeed or Fail, Local sovereignty makes more sense to me than rule from afar.

Tomorrow, my Dad and I are at our yearly outing at a very, very nice Country Club enjoying a round of the Scots own game, Golf. After we will have a wee dram with dinner in the club house and see what the Scots have decided.

After more than 300 years of political union, a Scots army, this time made up of voters, has a date with destiny, writes Hugh Reilly

It is June 1314, the place is Stirlingshire. The English army has tramped up the Middle Ages version of the M74 to sort out some treasonous Jocks who have challenged King Edward’s right to rule over his Scottish serfs. The rebellious Scots to be crushed are led by Robert the Bruce, a warrior king whose destiny could have been oh-so-different had he suffered from acute arachnophobia. Earlier, he had taken up residence in a damp cave, an ideal location for the fugitive on the go, and watched a hapless spider endeavour to swing Tarzan-like across the grotto’s entrance. On its sixth attempt, it finally succeeded.

Bruce interpreted the dodgy acrobatics as a sign that he could defeat the English. In terms of symptoms of a certifiable mental illness, waging a war based on the trapezium-type exploits of a spider was right up there with listening to the ranting of a burning bush.

Nevertheless, Bruce managed to gather a small army. Those who had answered his call to arms with a resounding “Yes” knew the dire consequences of defeat; yet, they felt the fear and did it anyway. They let out a huge groan when Bruce replied in the affirmative to Henry De Bohun’s demand for an equestrian square-go but how they cheered when Bruce stood tall in his stirrups and gave the English knight the pure malky with a battle-axe. Once the corpse was shuffled off the battlefield, the mortal combat began in earnest.

Despite being outnumbered two to one, the Scots prevailed, forcing Edward to catch the first cruise ship departing Dunbar for London. Across England, town-criers employed by the BBC declared it an outstanding English success. Sadly, the sacrifices of the men and women who fought for Scotland’s freedom were betrayed with the signing of the Act of Union 1707. The treachery of the ruling class is wonderfully encapsulated in the Robert Burns song, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation. The people of Scotland were not consulted on whether they wished to give up the country’s sovereignty; indeed, when the terms were revealed, riots erupted in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

On Thursday, Scots have a once- in-a-lifetime chance to end 300 years of a being a junior partner in the artificial country known as Britain. I say artificial because, despite three centuries of trying to weld four distinct peoples into one homogeneous race, the traits and differences persist. Ask a Londoner his nationality and he’ll answer “English” – likewise, a guy from Glasgow declares himself to be “Scottish”. No-one, with possible exception of hard-line Ulster Orangemen, states they are “British”.

Back in 2012, only around 26 per cent of voters supported independence. Last week, on accepting that the referendum result was on finely sharpened knife edge, Alistair Darling claimed that “it was inevitable that the gap would narrow” as polling day neared. He rather unhelpfully didn’t explain why it was somehow unavoidable that the pro-independence vote would gather momentum. I think I can give Mr Darling some clues.

Firstly, the scaremongering tactics haven’t played well with a highly educated, highly sceptical electorate. Project Fear has backfired spectacularly on the pro-Unionists as, one by one, the doom and gloom scenarios have been ushered into the light and exposed. Should Scottish voters have the cheek to back independence, Scotland would be evicted from the EU, said the nay-sayers. Nato wouldn’t want Alba either. Worse, the cost of sending worthwhile mobile phone texts such as “Ah’m oan the bus, c u in 10 mins” would rise due to roaming charges imposed by avaricious telecommunications companies.

The bluff that Scotland would not be permitted a currency union with its southern neighbour was called when the value of sterling fell on news of the possibility of Scotland regaining sovereignty. It’s abundantly clear that the penchants of the financial market will have a greater input on a currency union than the anti-independence utterings of Gideon Oliver Osborne (yes folks, that’s the Chancellor’s name as it appears on his birth certificate). Denying Scotland the use of the pound would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, akin to Van Gogh cutting off his ear to stop folk pestering him to wear spectacles.

Secondly, once the bluster and froth disappeared from the debate, Scots began to observe that objective evidence exists that their country will not descend into a land resembling the set of Mad Max. A league table of GDP wealth produced by the OECD – the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development – puts Scotland 14th in the world. The discussion between oil experts as to how much fossil fuel lies around our coastline told us that even the most Jeramiah of black gold drillers admits there are at least 16 billion barrels. Consequently, the unique attempt by Britain-firsters to paint carbon fuel assets to be burdensome liabilities failed to convince those cursed with possessing critical faculties.

A Yes victory would mean no more wars of adventure. Disastrous British foreign policy has led to the deaths of hundreds of UK soldiers and the maiming of thousands of others. And for what? Afghanistan is still a mediaeval basket case and IS rules large swathes of Iraq, a country we “liberated”. At home, a new Scotland would build on the sense of social justice that sets it apart from its southern neighbour. Despite the off-stage grumblings of arch-unionist Johann Lamont, the notions of free university education, free prescriptions and free personal care resonate with the majority of Scots who agree with a collectivist approach to helping those in need.

On Thursday, we have a date with destiny. I urge voters to seize the moment, to give us back full sovereignty over our affairs.

The alternative – more years of Westminster governments led by Cameron, Miliband or, heaven forbid, Boris Johnson – fills me with dread.

At Bannockburn, the “wee folk” bled for liberty. We need only place a cross in the Yes box. Cry freedom!

 

There is entirely too much history and information to cover in one blog post. So if I may, two columns and some links. The first is from Bill Jamieson:

THE CASE FOR ‘YES’ YOU’VE NEVER HEARD

Good morning, Scotland!

SCOT-BUZZ EDITOR BILL JAMIESON says it’s forty eight hours to the biggest political decision we’ve ever made – not just how we want to be governed but which country we want to be in…

Scotland is at fever pitch. Never before has such argument raged, mass rallies held, the TV studios packed and tens of thousands of windows plastered with ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ stickers. Banners are everywhere.

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Never has a question more polarised Scots’ opinion. Views for and against have been put with increasing passion. Towns, communities and families have been split.

Accusations of “scaremongering” and “Project Fear” have marked the battle. The pound has trembled and markets have swooned.

We’re global news. You can’t walk down Edinburgh’s Princes Street or Buchanan Street in Glasgow without being jostled by competing teams of camera crews.

We’ve never had such world attention.

Now it’s up to us to cast our vote.

You might think by now you’ve heard all the arguments there could be for independence.

But here’s one you almost certainly haven’t heard from the mouths of politicians – the argument that dare not speak its name…

Let’s call it Consequences, or facing up at last to the honest truth.

We’ve heard promises of more public spending, better welfare benefits, protected spending on the NHS, more secure pensions, and a Scottish government able to deliver with those North Sea oil revenues. We’ll escape austerity. We’ll be better off.

Many ‘Yes’ voters fervently believe this. And many traditional Labour voters have been won over by it. The ranks of ‘Yes’ have been swollen by the deep unpopularity of austerity, cuts in welfare spending and a prolonged squeeze on wages and earnings that have lagged inflation – pay reduction in real terms.

Five years of austerity. Little wonder there’s deep resentment.

But how likely is it that independence per se will change this? How credible are the promises?

It’s said Scotland has had a great referendum debate. That it has re-invigorated democracy.

But is this really true?

Throughout this long campaign there’s been a huge hole.

There’s been barely any analysis of the real cause of our grievance, of what lies behind austerity and why public spending is being squeezed.

This long, raucous relentless debate has proceeded without an honest assessment of why government has been unable to deliver, why politicians are distrusted and why voters feel so disenfranchised.

Two words have been barely mentioned by either side. But they’re the biggest words in politics today. Those words are deficit and debt.

Here are two figures to consider.  UK government debt now stands at £1.35 trillion. It will continue to rise next year, the year after that and the year after that.

While the annual budget deficit has been brought down, this only slows the rate at which the debt total continues to rise. B y 2018-19 that debt total is projected to climb to £1.5 trillion.

We can argue forever as to who or what was to blame, the wicked Tories or spendthrift Labour. But this debt has imposed a colossal burden.

It’s a figure almost too big to contemplate. So let’s focus instead on the annual debt interest alone.

This year, we need to find £52 billion to meet the interest bill. This, too, continues to rise. By 2018-19 it is set to hit £75 billion.

This means, it soaks up the entire tax revenue from fuel duties, Petroleum Revenue Tax, tobacco duties, spirits duty, wine duty, beer duty, Air Passenger Duty, insurance Premium Tax, the Climate Change Levy and Vehicle Excise Duty – and we will still have £3 billion to find!

Little wonder politicians hate talking about debt. Because debt interest is ‘dead money’. It brings in no votes. But it’s one of the first things deducted from government spending. And it compels cuts in other areas to make room for it.

SCOTTISH CONSEQUENTIALS

An independent Scotland’s share of UK debt is reckoned at between £126 billion and £140 billion. Just taking the lower figure would leave Holyrood with £3.8 billion to find in annual interest charges.

Surely, then, we should vote ‘No’? But the case for independence is strengthened, not weakened, by the prospect of a Scottish government having to come to terms with this Consequence.

Not having to deal with the realities of tax and borrowing and debt has left our politics infantalised for too long. It’s bred and fostered the culture of false promises and more spending without concern for the reality before us.

An independent Scotland would have to cope, very quickly and credibly, with this reality. To hold and retain business and investor confidence, the independent government would need to recognise, in a way the referendum battle has failed to do, the reality of government today and the constraints that come with it.

Spending commitments will be deferred as finance minister John Swinney earnestly tells the Scottish parliament of the need to establish early credibility as one of “regrettable necessities of building independence”.

Remember, too, the resources he will need to find to build up our reserves to put behind a currency board to ensure currency stability and halt capital flight (see elsewhere this page).

The parliament will ponder the option of tax increases rather than spending cuts. But it will also need to weigh up the cost of those tax increases – voter consequence and business exodus.

It will be a moment of truth like no other.

So why not avoid this and vote ‘No’? The problem here is that it will leave ‘Yes’ voters, not with a recognition of this reality, but with a bitter sense of grievance. A large proportion of Scotland will feel cheated and frustrated. These feelings will be stoked by claims that independence was wrested from our grasp at the last moment by a conspiracy of Westminster scare tactics, dirty tricks with banks and big business and the collusion of the BBC. The myth of the Stab in the Back is already being woven.

We will have learnt nothing and gained nothing. Instead, there’ll be the old enemy to blame – the London government, the Westminster parties, the metropolitan elite.

A ‘No’ vote does not put the issue to rest. On the contrary. It will condemn us to more years of infantile politics and reality evasion. The chance to come to terms with a major cause of our discontents will have been missed.

It’s not a comfortable case for independence. It’s not the case you’ll have heard from politicians.

But it’s the case far nearer to the truth than we’ve ever been told.

Now, Paul Krugman. Like him or not, he is absolutely right on this (however, Scotland has oil coming out of its ears and that changes the economics):

Scots, What the Heck?
SEPT. 7, 2014
Paul Krugman

Next week Scotland will hold a referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom. And polling suggests that support for independence has surged over the past few months, largely because pro-independence campaigners have managed to reduce the “fear factor” — that is, concern about the economic risks of going it alone. At this point the outcome looks like a tossup.

Well, I have a message for the Scots: Be afraid, be very afraid. The risks of going it alone are huge. You may think that Scotland can become another Canada, but it’s all too likely that it would end up becoming Spain without the sunshine.

Comparing Scotland with Canada seems, at first, pretty reasonable. After all, Canada, like Scotland, is a relatively small economy that does most of its trade with a much larger neighbor. Also like Scotland, it is politically to the left of that giant neighbor. And what the Canadian example shows is that this can work. Canada is prosperous, economically stable (although I worry about high household debt and what looks like a major housing bubble) and has successfully pursued policies well to the left of those south of the border: single-payer health insurance, more generous aid to the poor, higher overall taxation.

Does Canada pay any price for independence? Probably. Labor productivity is only about three-quarters as high as it is in the United States, and some of the gap may reflect the small size of the Canadian market (yes, we have a free-trade agreement, but a lot of evidence shows that borders discourage trade all the same). Still, you can argue that Canada is doing O.K.

But Canada has its own currency, which means that its government can’t run out of money, that it can bail out its own banks if necessary, and more. An independent Scotland wouldn’t. And that makes a huge difference.

Could Scotland have its own currency? Maybe, although Scotland’s economy is even more tightly integrated with that of the rest of Britain than Canada’s is with the United States, so that trying to maintain a separate currency would be hard. It’s a moot point, however: The Scottish independence movement has been very clear that it intends to keep the pound as the national currency. And the combination of political independence with a shared currency is a recipe for disaster. Which is where the cautionary tale of Spain comes in.

If Spain and the other countries that gave up their own currencies to adopt the euro were part of a true federal system, with shared institutions of government, the recent economic history of Spain would have looked a lot like that of Florida. Both economies experienced a huge housing boom between 2000 and 2007. Both saw that boom turn into a spectacular bust. Both suffered a sharp downturn as a result of that bust. In both places the slump meant a plunge in tax receipts and a surge in spending on unemployment benefits and other forms of aid.

Then, however, the paths diverged. In Florida’s case, most of the fiscal burden of the slump fell not on the local government but on Washington, which continued to pay for the state’s Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as for much of the increased aid to the unemployed. There were large losses on housing loans, and many Florida banks failed, but many of the losses fell on federal lending agencies, while bank depositors were protected by federal insurance. You get the picture. In effect, Florida received large-scale aid in its time of distress.

Spain, by contrast, bore all the costs of the housing bust on its own. The result was a fiscal crisis, made much worse by fears of a banking crisis that the Spanish government would be unable to manage, because it might literally run out of cash. Spanish borrowing costs soared, and the government was forced into brutal austerity measures. The result was a horrific depression — including youth unemployment above 50 percent — from which Spain has barely begun to recover.

And it wasn’t just Spain, it was all of southern Europe and more. Even euro-area countries with sound finances, like Finland and the Netherlands, have suffered deep and prolonged slumps.

In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. In economics jargon, fiscal and banking integration are essential elements of an optimum currency area. And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.

I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.

 

This Link has all of the articles, data, polling and otherwise that you need to become informed.:

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/

Two articles to wrap up the discussion:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/scottish-independence-surge-has-forced-complacent-and-smug-elite-take-notice http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/jobs-jobs-jobs

Why build a chemistry laboratory entirely of combustible WOOD?

by 1389AD ( 84 Comments › )
Filed under Climate, Education, UK at September 15th, 2014 - 6:00 pm
'Irony Alert!' sign
Suggestion: Next time, try iron.

Daily Mail (UK): Not so carbon neutral now! New eco-friendly £15million university laboratory built out of wood goes up in flames

  • ❋ The Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry at Nottingham University caught fire at 8.30pm Friday
  • ❋ The £15million wooden structure has been completely destroyed in the blaze which needed 60 firefighters to control
  • ❋ Nottingham University held an open day for prospective undergraduates today despite the fire continuing to blaze
  • ❋ Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service said they expected the fire would continue for at least another 24 hours
  • ❋ An investigation into the cause of the blaze has not yet started as the building is still too dangerous to examine
  • ❋ University Registrar Dr Paul Greatrix said the college would be working with its partners to rebuild the structure
  • ❋ At the height of the blaze people could see the flames from seven miles away across the city

Complete story, video, and photos here.

Don’t build a chem lab at home…

…or at school, or at work, unless you know what you’re doing! For some surprisingly entertaining reading, Max Gergel offers a wealth of good reasons to exercise extreme caution in the planning, construction, and setup of procedures in chemistry facilities. Derek Lowe and John D. Clark offer many more.

If you can ignore the “climate change” guff, some good science education comes from Nottingham:

https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile/videos (Mathematics)
http://www.youtube.com/periodicvideos (Chemistry stuff)
http://www.youtube.com/sixtysymbols (Physics and astronomy)
http://www.youtube.com/DeepSkyVideos (Space stuff)
http://www.youtube.com/nottinghamscience (Science and behind the scenes)
http://www.youtube.com/foodskey (Food science)
http://www.youtube.com/BackstageScience (Big science facilities)
http://www.youtube.com/favscientist (Favourite scientists)
http://www.youtube.com/bibledex (Academic look at the Bible)
http://www.youtube.com/wordsoftheworld (Modern language and culture)
http://www.youtube.com/PhilosophyFile (Philosophy stuff)

British women led by Aqsa Mahmood running sharia police unit for ISIS in Syria

by 1389AD ( 31 Comments › )
Filed under Sharia (Islamic Law), Syria, UK at September 15th, 2014 - 7:43 am

Independent (UK) has the story:

British jihadi Aqsa Mahmood
Aqsa Mahmood

As many as 60 British women have joined an all-female sharia police unit for the Islamic State (Isis), reprimanding those who fall foul of the jihad’s strict rules.

The al-Khansaa brigade is believed to be operating in the Syrian city of Raqqa, which is controlled by Isis militants and works as their Syrian headquarters.

According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium (TRAC), the militia group was established earlier this year to help expose male activists who attempt to disguise themselves in women’s clothing to avoid detention.

A prominent figure in the police force, according to the UK-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), is Aqsa Mahmood, a privately-educated Glaswegian 20-year-old who fled to Syria last November.

Most of the British women who have travelled to the war torn region to fight, are between the ages of 18 and 24, the Daily Telegraph reports, a further three of whom are believed to have joined the military unit.

The ICSR says it monitors 25 British female jihadists who have left their lives in the UK to support Isis.

The brigade’s women are reportedly paid a monthly salary of 25,000 Syrian Pounds (roughly £100), says TRAC, for duties that are not involved with acts of terror – instead insurgency operations.

They are not the only all-female brigade, either, with another – Umm Al-Rayan – also created around the same time.

Security services believe that it is likely that the women will know the true identity of ‘Jihadi John’, the Isis fighter believed to be the person responsible for the beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

According to Syria Deeply, the al-Khansaa brigade has also been tasked with cracking down on civilian women who fail to abide by the ultra-strict brand of sharia law implemented by Isis, including that women be fully covered in public and be chaperoned by a male.

An Isis official in Raqqa reportedly said: “We have established the brigade to raise awareness of our religion among women, and to punish women who do not abide by the law.

“There are only women in this brigade, and we have given them their own facilities to prevent the mixture of men and women.”

On Thursday, the parents of Ms Mahmood made an emotional plea for their daughter to return and claimed that she had “betrayed” not only them but their community and “the people of Scotland” when she left to fight.

“Our daughter is brainwashed and deluded and helping those engaged in genocide,” her parents said.

Melanie Smith, a research associate at ICSR, said: “The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS [Islamic State] laws in the region. I believe that’s why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force.”

The identities of the other three women are current unknown, however a small contingent of female Britons have flown over to the region to fight in some capacity.

Twin 16-year-old sisters Zahra and Salma Halane left their Manchester home on 26 June to join the conflict – it is believed they married Isis militants, with terrorist chiefs investigating whether the men paid for their travel.

Muslim convert Sally Jones, a mother of two from Kent, is also believed to have fled to Isis from her life in the UK after meeting a computer hacker turned jihadi online and later marrying him.

More here.

The Religion Of Peace Strikes Again In Iraq

by Flyovercountry ( 233 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, British Islamic Jihadists, Iraq, Islam, Islamists, Syria at August 12th, 2014 - 9:00 am

In almost every forum on the web, the battle rages on, as it has since chat rooms and the quicker web based forums have existed, is Islam a religion of peace, or a religion of blood lust and savagery? Somehow, tiny Israel, no matter what the circumstance, has found herself dragged, (often times by the most tenuous examples of logical gymnastics,) into the debate. An example of this is the argument which states that the only reason why Muslims ever commit any acts of savagery, which is not inherent to their religion by the way, is because Israel exists.

Make no mistake about where I am coming from. I am solidly in the latter camp. I find it astounding that some people fail to make that obvious connection between Islam, and the acts committed by the people who practice that faith. Now it is true that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and members of every other belief cast known to man have occasionally run afoul of the law, or even the common rules of courteous behavior. That however is a far cry from what we see on a daily basis coming from the members of the Religion of Peace. It is also true that sometimes, people without economic means have also found themselves on the wrong side of the rules promoting civility most societies place on themselves. I don’t recall this picture, nor one even close to it, having come from South Central LA, Harlem, South Philadelphia, East Detroit, West Chicago, Columbus’ Central Point, East Cleveland, Washington D.C., or any other American urban nightmare.

A Christian girl beheaded by ISIS terrorists. There is no doubt that we face genocide.

That ladies and gentleman is the body of an elementary aged child who was killed in the latest Jihad Islam has waged upon civilized society. She was not accidentally caught up in a group of buildings that were carpet bombed, nor in a singular building that was bombed. She was not inadvertently hit by cross fire, a victim of being too close to a battle that she was unable to escape. She survived those unfortunate examples of grown ups being unable to get along. She instead was grabbed by a grown adult male, or perhaps a group of them, held down by at least one, and had her head cut off by a man with a scimitar who chanted “Allahu Akbar.” The entire group of savage miscreants were men who belonged to the militarized death cult Known as Islam, and further, felt that their religious texts not only condone this behavior, but in fact command it. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Take a good look at that picture, and then consider this. The hipsters on the political left are glorifying ISIS. They are calling them freedom fighters, selling and wearing t-shirts like they’d done with Che Guevara, and more importantly, are equating the deeds of these animals with Israel’s legitimate attempts to evacuate citizens in Gaza before each and every strike designed to defend herself and her children.

I don’t want to get into the debate as to whether President Obama’s current actions, ostensibly designed to deal with ISIS have been effective. Indeed my guess is that an argument can most certainly be made as to the efficacy of the recent bombing campaign loosed by the Pentagon. I’ve read reports this morning already that the Kurds have managed to retake some of the previously captured cities over run by ISIS. That’s most definitely a positive sign if true. What I will point out however is that the entire formation and subsequent anschluss by ISIS is most certainly the direct and inevitable result of President Obama’s dalliance in foreign policy, his consistent dithering, and more importantly, his complete blind and incurious eye when it comes to dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The war in Iraq had been won, and Barack Obama endeavored to lose it after the fact. He failed to achieve the rather mundane and previously considered to be automatic task of affixing his name to a Status of Forces Agreement, one that had already been drawn up and agreed to by the way by Iraq’s elected leadership. That must be what they call diplomatic smart power. Evil loves a vacuum, and the Obama foreign policy, complete with that Mattel constructed reset button has certainly left plenty of those around. As a matter of fact, that was the entire crux of the Bamster’s foreign agenda, projecting American Weakness where ever the world needed our strength. This is what happens when you throw allies under the buss and embolden enemies with praise and foreign aid. The world, most especially that part of it which resides in the Middle East, noticed that Barack Obama ordered our military to fight along side of the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Al Qaeda, in Libya, Egypt, and in Syria. Maybe ISIS was the unexpected surprise that our Ditherer in Chief never really counted on. That does nothing to change the fact however that if it weren’t them, it would simply have been someone else. As I pointed out, evil loves a vacuum, and Barack Obama is hell bent upon creating them.

I’ll leave you with two links to the handy work of our Man Child President and his feckless foreign policy. We’ll have some more good news on this front tomorrow, in the mean time, enjoy! Elections have consequences.

click here for some good news.

click here for some more good news.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Vice News: Rise of the Islamic State Parts I and 2

by Rodan ( 21 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Albania, Bosnia, British Islamic Jihadists, Chechnya, Iraq, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Kosovo, Sharia (Islamic Law), Special Report, Syria, Terrorism at August 8th, 2014 - 7:47 pm

Vice News was able to embed a reporter with ISIS and record this documentary.

Part 1

Part 2

ISIS continues its march

by Rodan ( 267 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, British Islamic Jihadists, Chechnya, Gaza, Hezballah, IDF, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, NIGERIA, Syria at August 4th, 2014 - 10:02 am

ISIS continues to expand its reach in the Middle East. In Iraq they seized a major dam and several villages from Kurdish forces. In Lebanon ISIS along with their rival Nusra Font have combined to seize territory in Lebanon centered around the town of Arsal. They are now clashing with the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah.

ISLAMIC State (Isis) fighters have seized control of Iraq’s biggest dam, an oilfield and three more towns after inflicting their first major defeat on Kurdish forces since sweeping through the region in June.

Capture of the Mosul Dam after an offensive of barely 24 hours could give the Sunni militants the ability to flood major Iraqi cities, sharply raising the stakes in their bid to topple Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s Shi’ite-led government.

[....]

sis fighters have also been involved in violent exchanges with Lebanese armed forces around a border town in a push to dislodge the biggest incursion by militants into Lebanon since Syria’s civil war began.

At least ten Lebanese soldiers have died in the fighting, which erupted after Islamist gunmen seized a local police station on Saturday in response to the arrest of their commander, security officials said.

An unknown number of militants and civilians have also been killed, and security sources say at least 16 members of Lebanon’s security forces have been taken captive.

The gunmen in Arsal include fighters linked to the Islamic State (Isis), the al Qaeda offshoot that has seized territory in Syria and Iraq, as well as Syria’s al Qaeda branch, the Nusra Front.

ISIS and its allies are now battling on multiple fronts Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Nigeria where Boko Harram has pledges allegiance and Libya. The self describe Caliphate has shattered the Iranian led Shiite crescent and are threatening Jordan. This organization is a cancer that is spreading. ISIS believes it is reliving the 7th Century Jihad.

Is William Gladstone a model for the Republican Party?

by Speranza ( 139 Comments › )
Filed under History, UK at June 5th, 2014 - 8:00 am

It seems that William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli (and to a certain extent Lord Salisbury) were constantly replacing each other as Prime Minister in late Victorian Britain. Both were men of great political virtues. Britain’ s mistake was to neglect her army and to give almost all of her attention to her navy. In order to deter aggression you need strong land forces.

by Max Boot

In the Saturday Wall Street Journal, John Micklethwaite and Adrian Wooldridge of the Economist had an article, based on their new book The Fourth Revolution, putting forward William Ewart Gladstone–the Grand Old Man of Victorian politics–as a role model for 21st century Republicans.

Their effort to revive Gladstone’s reputation can only be cheered by anyone interested in 19th century British politics (which I confess is one of my quirkier interests) and the proposals they put forward for improving the effectiveness of government while reducing its cost appear laudable. [.......]As a parliamentary candidate and leader of the Liberal Party, he campaigned against what he saw as the imperialist excesses of the Tories in places such as southern Africa and Afghanistan where, in the First Boer War and the Second Afghan War, respectively, Britain was then suffering embarrassing reverses.

In his campaign Gladstone laid out the principles of what was then known as a Little England policy and today would be called non-interventionism. Among his principles: “1. The first thing is to foster the strength of the Empire by just legislation and economy at home. 2. My second principle of foreign policy is this: peace. 3. In my opinion the third sound principle is this to strive to cultivate and maintain, ay, to the very uttermost, what is called the concert of Europe; to keep the Powers of Europe in union together. 4. My fourth principle is that you should avoid needless and entangling engagements.  [.......] 6. And that sixth (principle) is, that in my opinion foreign policy, subject to all the limitations that I have described, the foreign policy of England should always be inspired by the love of freedom.”

Gladstone was certainly no isolationist. He criticized the Tories for not doing more about the Ottoman Empire’s slaughter of Christians in Bulgaria, and as prime minister he oversaw the virtual annexation of Egypt in 1882.  [......]

No matter how much Disraeli and Gladstone, in particular, were often ranged against each other on matters of policy both domestic and foreign, they shared in the Victorian consensus that Britain needed to keep defense spending low so as not to be a burden on the people’s purses or liberties. Britain spent enough to maintain the world’s largest navy but even its naval hegemony was increasingly challenged by a German naval buildup in the early 20th century. Meanwhile the British army remained tiny, fit only for imperial campaigning.

This was all part of a strategy that today is called “offshore balancing”: British policymakers vowed they could safeguard their interests by controlling the seas without having to intervene in a major land war in Europe. This is the same strategy that many urge on the U.S. today–in fact a strategy that the Obama administration seems to be implementing as we downsize our army to the lowest level since 1940. Yet all it takes is a passing familiarity with British history to see how delusional and self-destructive this policy can be.

The very fact that Britain lacked an army capable of fighting the armies of Europe meant that Britain was unable to deter German aggression in either 1914 or 1939. Indeed the British aversion to land warfare called into doubt its commitments to allies such as Belgium and France and led German militarists to gamble they could overrun Europe without major hindrance from London. In the event, the German calculation was wrong–Britain’s entry into both World War I and World War II was a key obstacle to German designs.  [.......]

Worried about spending too much on defense, the Victorians and their successors spent too little, and wound up having their country and their empire bled dry in conflagrations that might have been avoided if Britain had done more to defend itself and its allies. There is an important lesson here for present-day Republicans who focus only on reducing the size of government. They should not forget that government’s first duty is to defend the country and if it is unable to do that–or even if it is able to do so but only after a long, costly struggle that might have been avoided–then short-term cost savings on defense will prove ephemeral. In the end military weakness is far more costly than military strength. That was a lesson that Gladstone and other Victorian titans ignored and that their would-be successors should heed.

Read the rest – Is Gladstone a model for the GOP?

We’re All Racists Now!

by coldwarrior ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Economy, government, Islam, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Racism, UK at May 29th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

It was, after all, just a matter of time!

RAAAAACIST!

 

Are we all racist now?

As a survey of British social attitudes reveals a shocking upturn in prejudice, Allison Pearson argues that the political elite’s desire to advance multiculturalism with mass immigration has backfired

With impeccable timing, the children chose Mother’s Day lunch to tell their grandmother she was racist. And what vile abuse had my poor mother bandied about? She had asked her grandson if his choir sang Negro spirituals.

“Raaaa-cisst,” chorused my junior Thought Police with more than a hint of witchfinder glee.

“I’m not racist,” said my mother, clearly shocked. “What did I say that was racist?”

“You’re not allowed to call them Negro spirituals any more,” my Daughter informed her.

“What do you call them, then?” asked Grandma.

“African-American spirituals,” announced Daughter, a creature of such impeccable liberal certitude that she makes Nick Clegg look like Oswald Mosley.

“People of Colour spirituals,” hazarded the Boy. He obviously didn’t have a clue, but was enjoying his generation’s favourite baiting game: More Politically Correct Than Thou.

“Grandma is not racist,” said Himself. “Heinrich Himmler is a racist. Grandma, not so much.”

“Who’s Henry Himmer?” asked the Boy.

“Heinrich HIMMLER,” said Himself, “was a foul, Jew-exterminating, Nazi fiend whom your grandmother’s parents and their whole generation fought a world war to defeat in order that she could sit here 70 years later and be called racist by her sanctimonious and ungrateful grandchildren. Anyone for crumble?”

When my mum had gone for a nap, I explained to the kids that racism was not as black and white as they seemed to think. During their grandmother’s lifetime, the UK had seen vast social changes. Certain words once in common usage were now regarded as toxic, and rightly so. I blenched to think that, as a child myself, I went down the “Paki” shop to get some Blackjacks (inky toffees in a wrapper decorated with the faces of, then unremarkable, golliwogs). Miss Leyshon, my lovely primary school teacher, taught us to count with the help of three toys, Teddy, Dolly and Golly. In 2014, she would be considered guilty of inciting racial hatred.

I told the kids that, over the past 15 years, my mother’s town in South Wales had seen a huge influx of Eastern Europeans. It was possible for Grandma and her friends to note that the character of their birthplace had changed, and express some unease about it, but also for them to enthuse about their excellent Romanian dentist. Tolerance was not a one-way street. Tolerance meant treating elderly people who used outdated language with understanding, not finger-pointing and yelling “Raaa-cisst!” Real racism – the ugly, frightening, visceral kind – would flourish if people’s tolerance was taken for granted, and their communities changed too fast without any regard for the consequences.

That was two months ago, and I wish I were more surprised to learn that a new British Social Attitudes survey has found that more than a third of Britons admit they are racially prejudiced. Prejudice fell to an all-time low in 2001, but the latest figures show that the problem has returned to the level of 30 years ago. More than 90 per cent of those who say they are racist want to see immigration halted. More interestingly, 72 per cent of those who do not consider themselves racist also want to see immigration cut drastically.

As shell-shocked politicians from the main parties struggle to discern the causes of Ukip’s deafening electoral success, here’s a tip: look in the mirror, chaps! It is politicians, not the British people, who are to blame for a resurgence in racism; politicians who have ignored public opinion and created the conditions in which resentments fester and grow. Specifically, though not exclusively, it is New Labour who welcomed workers from the new, accession countries of the EU at a time when countries such as France and Germany wisely exercised their right to keep them out for another seven years. According to Jack Straw, this was a “spectacular” error. And Jack should know, because he was Home Secretary at the time. The plan of Tony Blair’s government, as laid bare by Andrew Neather, then a Blair speechwriter, was to banish that old, hideously white, retrograde England and usher in a new, vibrant, multicultural country which, rather conveniently, would vote Labour. Mr Blair now works in international conflict resolution, having stored up enough conflict in his homeland to keep future generations busy for centuries.

You bigoted xenophobic nazis can read the rest here.

John Kerry insults France, UK, Canada, Israel in one speech

by Speranza ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, France, Headlines, Islamists, Israel, John Kerry, Syria, UK at May 26th, 2014 - 7:36 am

This clown came very close to being president in 2004.

by Daniel Greenfield

The State Department repeatedly refused to name Boko Haram a terrorist organization, urged the government to pursue appeasement policies and even threatened the Nigerian government for daring to fight them.

Now Kerry is beating his sunken chest while insulting a whole bunch of other countries.

The United States is alone in helping Nigeria locate more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by Islamists, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday, despite help on the ground from Britain, France and Israel

“Boko Haram, Nigeria, only the United States is there offering the assistance to help find those young women,” Kerry said during a dinner at the State Department.

“Other countries not only aren’t they invited, but they didn’t even offer. That’s a difference, and I think it’s a difference worth dwelling on.”

However the United States is joined in Nigeria by Britain, France and Israel, which have sent their own experts. China, which saw 10 citizens likely abducted by Boko Haram in a region bordering Cameroon, has also proposed to help.

Also Canada appears to have sent some support.

The Canadian government announced more than two weeks ago that it was sending surveillance equipment and personnel to Nigeria to help search for the schoolgirls who were abducted by Boko Haram extremists. It later emerged that Canada was also sending special forces’ soldiers as further support.

Then in a stunning betrayal, Kerry lashed out at his own homeland.

In his speech, Kerry also lashed out at France, whose Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has expressed regret that the United States did not attack Syria a year ago amid spiraling violence in the conflict there.

“People are angry because we did not strike Syria at one instance but guess what: Today, 92 percent of all the chemical weapons in Syria are out and being destroyed and the other eight percent will get out,” a visibly angry Kerry said, without mentioning France specifically.

“That never would have occurred otherwise.”

It hasn’t occurred anyway. Anyone who thinks that Syria has given up the majority of its chemical weapons is… well John Kerry.

The UK is not exactly thrilled with the snub. The French enjoy diplomatic fights with the US. And the Israelis couldn’t possibly hate Kerry anymore. But there is something strange about Kerry using a State Department dinner to demonstrate the opposite of diplomacy.

It’s the kind of thing Democrats expected from Bush.