Video of PM Gordon Brown Calling Voter "Bigoted"

Say goodbye to another term...




Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

British Paper Slams Obama Falklands Dithering

The Daily Telegraph, one of the largest newspapers in Great Britain has written an op-ed slamming the Obama Administration's handling of the Falkland Islands issue. This comes after Obama snubbed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last year and also released documents accusing Britain of cooperating in torture.

The Telegraph couldn't be clearer in decrying Obama's cluelessness on foreign policy, especially about the Falklands. Recently as much as 40 billion barrels of oil was found surrounding the islands, which are owned by Britain. Argentina's claims and invasion of the islands in 1982 led to a short war which Britain decisively won.

From the article:

One has to wonder what benefit America gets out of hurting Britain on this issue. Perhaps Obama thinks that the more Leftist Latin American regimes will somehow approve of the US. If that is the case, he is truly mistaken, as most Latin American nations dislike the Argentineans, and have little sympathy for the mess Argentina got into over the Falklands.

Zing!

Bookmark our site!


Consider advertising on our site!

Daniel Hannan for Prime Minister

Why would I give a damn about another Nation holding a major election? Considering I reside in the greatest Nation in the world, and we are in dangerous times as is, why would I really give a damn? Except for maybe Israel of course, but why would I care about what a bunch of belligerent socialists voting for liberty depraved numbskull's across the world, spike my interest?

It wouldn't, and it does not.

Then again, there is one election overseas which I am intently looking forward to, the election of a new Prime Minister in England. Which is decided by which party wins the most seats in their legislative body. Is it because I want David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party in England, to claim victory over the embattled socialist Gordon Brown?

While anyone other then Brown would be a blessing, no.

I actually have my own personal Conservative candidate who should become the next Prime Minister of Great Britain, that would be member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan.

Hannan is a classy lad, who deeply admires the United States Constitution, he has even gone as far to propose American ideals in Britain & across Europe, perhaps for the first time someone is advocating American ideals in Europe, and not vice-versa. Hannan is more in like with American Conservatism t0 a certain degree, and understands that you cannot spend, what you do not have. Hannan is also a believer in free market Capitalism, something which both allies need ever so more increasingly.

Hannan has even been brave enough to go against the government health care system in England, which is comparable to a third world Nation's health care system, unlike in the United States where the greatest health care system is based, Hannan warned Americans about the dangers of government run health care on Sean Hannity a few weeks ago, because of his comments that dare go against government run health care, Hannan has been harshly criticized in Britain.

Daniel Hannan has appeared on Glenn Beck's radio & television shows, Sean Hannity's radio & television shows, and on Neil Cavuto's 4PM television show, because of these appearances, and his speech which went global on You Tube, in which he told Gordon Brown the honest truth in regards to his economic policy, he has become America's favorite Brit.

"

Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ and that you have subsidised, where you have not nationalised outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words? Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country?

The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging; in other words – to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line under the accumulated weight of your debt We are now running a deficit that touches 10% of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary; countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising; like everyone else I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year - in the last twelve months – a hundred thousand private sector jobs have been lost and yet you created thirty thousand public sector jobs.

Prime Minister, you cannot carry on for ever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense! Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so; the European Commission has said so; the markets have said so – which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government."

America needs Conservatism badly, however, England needs Daniel Hannan even more. I would like to make one proposition before concluding this article, if Hannan does not become Prime Minister, can we trade the Brits a couple of dozens liberals for Mr.Hannan to come to the United States Congress?

Side note : Let us all remember, it was England that first elected Margaret Thatcher, America followed suit electing Ronald Reagan. England can once again lead the way with Daniel Hannan, who will rise to the occasion in America? Only time will tell all.

Daniel Hannan 2010 for Prime Minister!

Daniel Hannan's blog - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/

Authors note : Another reason to support Hannan, while Hannan at first supported Obama in the election, he has since become one of his largest critics, as he saw what Obama was really all about, he woke up from the hope & change baloonza, hopefully Millions of Americans will as well.

Bookmark our site!












Consider advertising on our site!

Schumer Calls for Sanctions on-- Britain

Senator Charles Schumer, from my home state of New York, has made one of the stupidest comments in the history of 21st century politics. While I agree that the United States should protest Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber, there is no reason to go as far as Schumer suggested-- placing sanctions on our closest ally.

That's right! Schumer stated that if the UK did receive oil contracts for Megrahi's release, the United States should enact some "quid pro quo" and economically punish Britain. According to the New York Post:

"You can't allow a vicious terrorist who killed so many to go free after eight years," the New York Democrat said. "If it is true that there was a quid pro quo -- and it hasn't been proven yet -- there ought to be some sanctions against Britain."

This comes after President Obama snubbed the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth. Obama has also reportedly been reducing intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom.

Schumer should choose his words better and say more bad things about Megrahi than Britain, who sent troops and took a leading role in both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Remember 7/7

Four years ago today, cowardly terrorists aligned with al Qaeda assaulted Great Britain in a coordinated strike on mass transit. Using four suicide bombers, the terrorists were able to kill over 50 and wound many more.

Two weeks later came more attempted attacks on other targets in the capital, which fortunately did not succeed. Prime Minister Tony Blair showed courage and resolve after both attacks.

Terrorists and their allies believe that they have a reason to strike at the democratic nations of the world. Many, including Britain and Spain, were at the forefront of the War on Terrorism. Terrorists intended to knock them out by assaulting civilians and having the government (not the terrorists themselves) be blamed. Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq after the Madrid bombings on March 11, 2004.

To Londoners and British credit, the UK has stayed steadfast against extremism and stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States and democracy.

Thank you Britain.
May the dead and their loved ones find peace.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Michael Savage Blacklisted from Britain

According to Yahoo! News, the government of Britain recently released a report in which it blacklists several "radicals." These crazies include people from Hamas, Jewish extremists...and popular talk show host Michael Savage.

According to the Home Secretary of Britain, Jacqui Smith, "If you can't live by the rules that we live by... we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded."

I will be the first to say that I love Great Britain. They are a symbol of rights and freedom throughout the world and one of the United States' greatest ally. But what can you say when they are banning people from their country because of their opinions? You can't truly say anything.

Free speech, something that apparently cannot cross the Atlantic. But then again, we must be watchful against the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which will limit our freedom. We must be vigilant not to lose our own free speech.


Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Obama Snubs British PM to Prove 'Humility'

President Obama appears to be making the world safe for autocracy again by snubbing perhaps our strongest ally. Not only would the President not stand next to the Prime Minister for a photograph, but sent a priceless bust of Churchill packing, as well. To cap it all off, he sent the PM an official gift of... 25 DVDs! And American DVDs do not work in British players. So why did he do all this? One theory is that Michelle Obama had a hand in it:

We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.

But remember, we need to talk to Syria and Iran... but snub Britain.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Nationalism, Hysteria, and Gavrilo Princip

Need to fill some space, so enjoy a history paper from October 8, 2006.

Since the beginning of history, human emotions and sensibilities have been used and misused by nations and empires in war. Nationalism, ethnicity, and government systems have all been utilized as wedges to make the people of one country the moral superiors to another, to create the mindset to justify organized killing without remorse or feeling.

Not many would have thought that two shots fired from a young Bosnian’s Belgian pistol would create the largest war that humans had known. However, in further inspection, it becomes apparent how different factors with differing goals each inadvertently created the nightmare that was to come.

On June 28, 1914, a Bosnian nationalist terrorist, Gavrilo Princip, shot and killed Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo. Ferdinand had been an isolated lobbyist in the Hapsburg Monarchy for allowing more freedoms to the southern Slavs that were in Austria-Hungary’s borders. (Geiss, 143-4) During the nineteenth century, the dominant German Austrians allowed the Magyar population to establish much autonomy under the Kingdom of Hungary. Ferdinand had hoped that the monarchy could do the same for those in Bosnia and Croatia, as well as granting universal suffrage across the empire. (Geiss, 143-4) The concept of Austria granting more autonomy to south Slavs infuriated Serbian and Bosnian nationalists, that wanted to create a “Greater Serbia” in the same territory. (Fay, pt. 1, 370)

In Serbia, most press outlets celebrated the killing, stating its justice and touting Serbian nationalism. (Scott, 69) Serbia felt betrayed when Austria annexed Bosnia in 1909 from the Turks, and felt that its reach should spread north into the territory. (Scott, 69) The government of Prime Minister Nicholas Pasic tried to mute the cheerfulness of the nationalists, fearing reprisals from Austria. (Jannen, 6) He was aware that some mid-and lower-level Serb government officials were involved with the terrorist group that planned the murder, the Black Hand. Any close inspection of these links by Austria would be used as a casus belli for a war. (Geiss, 83) Pasic, in fact, had heard of plans for a terrorist attack in Bosnia right before the event and tried to warn Austrian officials. (Geiss, 83) Still, the Serbian press played up the event as a great victory for Greater Serbia, drawing ire from Austrians and others. (Fay, Pt. 1, 64)

After the assassination, reactions in Austria were varied. Much of the nobility in Austria and Hungary were not deeply saddened, and in fact, almost relieved that the main purveyor of a Trialist system was silenced (Fay, pt.2, 18-27) However, some in the Austrian government saw this as an opportunity to expand Austria’s reach into the Balkans and stop the ever-increasing flow of separatism within Austria-Hungary. Count Leopold Berchtold, Minister to the Imperial Household and Foreign Affairs, saw the clear pretext that Austria could use to either annex or neuter Serbia. (Geiss, 191) He almost single-handedly pushed press reports within Austria to more militant tones, while surveying European governments for their reactions to potential Austrian actions. (Geiss, 191) By the day after the attack, Croats and Muslims in the city of Sarajevo rioted against their Bosnian Serb neighbors, burning shops and parading black-lined portraits of Franz Ferdinand. (Jannen 8-11) Soon, Austrian Germans began their own attacks on Serbs and carried protest signs to support the monarchy. (Jannen 8-11)

Meanwhile, in Germany, there was a more mild reaction to the assassination. The Hohenzollern monarchy was allied with Austria-Hungary, and counseled their ally to work cautiously. (Geiss, 184) Instead, Count Berchtold helped draft an ultimatum to the Serbian P.M. Nicholas Pasic, demanding Austrian reach in Serbia to investigate the murder and the Black Hand. (Geiss, 83) The demands were bold and clearly intended to either destroy Serbian sovereignty or cause war. Given a two-day deadline, Pasic and his government tried to negotiate, but found the ultimatum unchangeable. (Fleming, 146-9)

Within Germany itself, the press began attacking the Serbian government and supported Austrian claims on Serbia’s sovereignty. (Jannen, 286-7) In Munich, Serbian students were attacked by angry mobs. (Fleming, 286-7) The idea of Pan-Germanism grew rapidly. The Hapsburgs and their Austrian dominions were Germans, and a special relationship between the two countries had existed for years before. (Fleming, 48-71) German nationalism started rapidly expanding as the Serbian government was seen as not obeying a German government. (Jannen, 286-7)

Russia also saw an increase of vitriol that led to its involvement in the war. Russia for years had supported the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans, both against the Muslim Turks, but also against the Catholic Austrians. (Fay, pt.1, 64) Russia felt a particularly strong bond with Serbia, a protégé of Russia with strong ties to its monarchy. Pan-Slavism was a movement that had arisen about fifty years beforehand, coinciding with the slow Turkish withdrawal from the Balkans. (Fay, pt.1, 64) The idea was creating a Greater Russia, allying or annexing Slavic nations in southeast Europe and conquering large portions of Asia Minor. Czar Nicholas and the Russian Empire was going through a period of self-doubt after the loss against Japan in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, as well as various uprisings against Czarist rule. (Scott, 131) The Russian government was looking for a warm-water port, so extra impetus was placed on expanding its influence in the Balkans.

The French press, upon hearing of the assassination, immediately pointed fingers of blame on Austria, and not Serbia, for its manhandling of Bosnia and its condescending relations with the smaller nations of the region. (Geiss, 183-4) As Austrian demands became greater in the coming months, the French press and government decried the Austrian imperialism and that of its ally Germany. (Geiss, 183-4) Anti-German feeling was high, since France had been handily defeated at the hands of Bismarck and Prussia in 1870-1. French politicians felt that if Austria was able to push farther south into the Balkans, it would hurt French allies Serbia and Greece.

In Great Britain in July 1914, a crisis was swelling, and it was not the crisis in Bosnia. Instead, Irish separatism was growing and an all-out civil war appeared likely. (Thompson, 100) British papers, at this time not as influenced by the government, saw the assassination in Sarajevo as an act of terrorism supported by some in the Serbian government. It portrayed initial Austrian rage over the killing as legitimate, and, along with the government, did not see any cause for general European war. When Germany invaded Belgium on August 4, the British press and government swiftly shifted to severe condemnation of the German government, seeing the attack as an assault on a neutral party. (Thompson, 37/42) Even the Anglican Church was used to justify England’s war rationale, stating in publications that Germany’s actions and values were “not Christian,” and that Austria and Germany started the war. (McCabe, 17-19) The Church also stated that Britain and her troops were not sinning by fighting, but serving God and Country. (McCabe, 17) These attitudes soon plunged Great Britain into more than four years of war.

Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance that bound it with Austria-Hungary and Germany. When tensions started to mount and Germany asked for Italy’s help in case of war, Italy skirted the issue. The dream of Italian nationalists was the establishment of a Greater Italy, encompassing South Tyrol, Trieste, and most of Dalmatia. In order to get these territories, Italy would have to wrest them from Austria. Italy stayed neutral through the violence of 1914, but after a secret agreement with Allied officials guaranteeing them the aforementioned territory, Italy joined the Allied cause.

The United States was the mightiest industrial power of the world, but seen as aloof to international politics outside of the Western hemisphere. Initially, U.S. public opinion was split between the Central and Allied Powers. (Fleming, 215) Many Americans of German descent felt sympathy for their brethren and many Americans were apprehensive of the British, of whom they had fought two wars. (Fleming, 218) Overall, however, the prevailing Anglo-American culture tended to skew public opinion towards the English and the Allied cause. (Fleming, 218) After Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare and the liner Lusitania was sunk in 1915, the opinions of both the public and the politicians jumped against the Central Powers. (Fleming, 208) The final straw was the Zimmerman note, sent by German officials to the Mexican government, promising land in the Southwest if Mexico should attack the United States. (Fleming, 199-200)

Across the belligerent powers, culture began to mirror the war cause, signifying the nation’s enemies as barbaric and worthy of defeat. In the U.S. and U.K., Germans were called Huns and tales of the rape and pillage of Belgium were sometimes exaggerated or fabricated. (Thompson, 37) In Russia, the Austrian Empire was seen as an overbearing, obsolete remnant of the 18^th century, oppressing Russia’s fellow Slavs. (Geiss, 131) Russia was seen by the Central Powers and some of her allies as a backwards example of absolutism. (Jannen, 105) German nationalism was hyped in Germany and Austria, where the governments and presses of the two allies stated racist ideology of the German controlling ‘lesser people,’ that made an impression on a young corporal on the Western Front. Even in tiny Bulgaria, nationalistic fever stoked by those who felt cheated out of gains made in the First Balkan War, and lost in the Second. Anger against its neighbors, including ethnic brothers like Serbs, Romanians, and Russians was used, despite being allies with these powers in the recent past.

The new Turkish government, just recently taken over by the Young Turks, looked to expand the Ottoman Empire back into Europe, after being pushed back over the last century in humiliating wars. The sanctity of the Turkish ethnos was proclaimed, and in the first part of the twentieth century, a Pan-Turkish movement looked to unite all Turkic people, from what is today Kazakhstan, down to the Ottoman Empire’s tenuous hold in Aden. (Fay, Pt. 1, 246) In order to do this, some felt that the Turks must learn from their past. For years, the Ottomans would allow non-Turkish Christians to live on their soil if they paid a religious tax. However, these ethnicities, tired of oppression by the Turks, slowly rose up and broke away. In order to prevent this again, the Turkish government felt that the empire must be cleansed of these ‘lesser races.’ From 1915 on, the Turkish government sponsored and ordered the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks. (Fay, Pt. 1, 373) In all, over two million people died, including one and a half million Armenians, and the rest of the population was driven out of the Empire and into Russia.

The intangible force of war, the will that it purveys, drives men from the tops of empires to the lowliest peasant. These powers create a feeling of purpose in a society that had largely not seen war. The eagerness of some to force World War One to happen was mostly not done from malice or hatred. Instead, the diplomats that fed the strife or the farmers that signed up for battle were thinking of the good of the state, and in turn, the good for them. Many of the worst crimes committed in history have been done appealing to peoples’ sense to do the right thing. The same strains of nationalism and selfishness can easily be ascertained today. This is seen, in many cases, in the same areas: the Balkans and the Middle East, for example. The virus that is war is many times not caused by evil men looking for wanton destruction. All too often it is done by the seemingly rational, pushed by their sense of country and well-being to do something that is regretted later.

In the end, when reflected upon, World War One is looked upon as a truly mistaken war. All those in Europe that could be called ‘winners’ lost more than they could bear. Romania doubled her territory, but almost half her enlisted men were killed. France gained Alsace-Lorraine at the cost of millions of her young men. Britain remained a great power, but her empire was so shaken that it would collapse within thirty years. Within twenty years of the Versailles treaty, Europe was at war again; this time not twelve million would die, but over sixty million, over half civilians murdered in cold blood. Like most adventures in nationalism, the end of World War One solved few root problems and caused more anger than the ‘victors’ could handle.

Bibliography

1. The War and the Churches, Joseph McCabe, 1915, Watts and Company, London

2. Five Weeks, Jonathan Scott, 1927, The John Day Company, New York

3. The Origins and Legacies of World War One, D.F. Fleming, 1968, Doubleday, Garden City, NY

4. The Lions of July, William Jannen, 1996, Presidio Press, Novato, CA

5. Politicians, the Press, and Propaganda, Lee Thompson, 1999, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH

6. The Origins of the World War, Sidney Bradshaw Fay, 1928, The Macmillan Company, New York

7. The Outbreak of the First World War, Hew Strachan, 1967, Oxford University Press, Oxford