[Breitbart UK] Nigel Farage, Member of the European Parliament and leader of the UK Independence Party criticized the "deliberate policy of multiculturalism" that has made people "frightened of our own shadows" on Wednesday's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on the Fox News Channel.
"What we've done, is we've allowed through a deliberate policy of multiculturalism, because we want to show the world what lovely people we are, we've allowed different communities to develop a different culture within, what ought to be a Judeo-Christian culture, in the case of my country, our constitution makes it perfectly clear, that is what we are as country and -- we want to be tolerant of other religions, and other minorities, but they've got to understand the law of the land in our country. We've lost sight of that, and we've seen Paris, we've seen events in parts of Belgium, now these arrests here in New York City today. This isn't going away in a hurry, and we're going to have to get very much more robust" he stated.
Farage said that while all religions can become radicalized, "the mosques in Britain have been infiltrated by a series of preachers, funded with big money coming out of parts of the Middle East, and saying things in mosques, that if I said in the streets of London, or you said in the streets of New York, we'd be arrested for," a problem he alleged the UK was "turning a blind eye" towards. Article is over a week old, but spot on.
#1
“What we’ve done, is we’ve allowed through a deliberate policy of multiculturalism, because we want to show the world what lovely people we are...
Yes, but I think it is more devious than that. It is not about a desire "to be lovely people." Well, maybe it is for what Lenin called the "useful idiots." The radical left is always out there strummin that guitar--those such as George Soros. Just like "gun control," it is a part of their perpetual agenda that just never goes away. Health care was another one of those agenda items to check off. In the end, it is about statists' control--except control is only for the ordinary people--the elites who push this are exempt.
[LegalInsurrection] This isn't the first time we've seen a DefSec push back against the aspirational foreign policy goals of the Obama Administration. Before he was sloppily deposed, Chuck Hagel went on the record several times with information that contradicted the Administration's talking points about ISIS, Syria, and the continuing regional conflicts in the Middle East. Hagel refused to downplay the threat that ISIS poses to the international community, and both he and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey remained publicly at odds with the Administration over pledges to keep US troops out of combat.
Carter is now in the same boat, but he's taken it a step further by criticizing the one provision in President Obama's request that served to ease the fears raised by yet another foray into Middle Eastern conflict.
Obama is quickly losing control of any remaining influence he has on the international stage, and it's not the fault of Carter, or Netanyahu, or any other Choose Your Own Fall Guy; but if there's one thing we've learned over the past few weeks, it's that control is the one thing this Administration thrives on. It doesn't matter if we're looking at good plans, bad plans, or no plan at all, as long as they are the ones with control over the direction of the speeding train.
Actually I do blame both Bushes for a lot of this situation. Their insistence on treating this as a war on "terror" and painting Islam as a RoP; and a no real problem here, go shopping attitude opened the gates for the disaster that is the Obamunist foreign policy.
#3
...sort of 'be glad its only herpes, it's not AIDS' form of foreign policy when dealing with 'good' Islamist who spread intolerance through the (insert country known for) funding of madrases across the kaffir non-Muslim world?
#4
Who's the next person in line for Secretary of Defense? I'm thinking this one won't last very long. "O" tends to be b!tchy, petulant, little-boy-like, vindictive and doesn't tolerate dissent. Good that he is not like the Nork "dear leader" as dissenters don't survive in the literal sense.
#9
The reason Obama gets away with it is that the press refuses to do its job and investigate and report his unforced errors and basic incompetence or perhaps even malfesance.
[David P. Goldman, PG Media] The problem with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's address to Congress March 3 was not the risk of offending Washington, but rather Washington's receding relevance. President Barack Obama is not the only leader who wants to acknowledge what is already a fact in the ground, namely that "Iran has become the preeminent strategic player in West Asia to the increasing disadvantage of the US and its regional allies," as a former Indian ambassador to Oman wrote this week.
For differing reasons, the powers of the world have elected to legitimize Iran's dominant position, hoping to delay but not deter its eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. Except for Israel and the Sunni Arab states, the world has no desire to confront Iran. Short of an American military strike, which is unthinkable for this administration, there may be little that Washington can do to influence the course of events. Its influence has fallen catastrophically in consequence of a chain of policy blunders.
The powers of the world hope to delay, but not deter, Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The best that Prime Minister Netanyahu can hope for is that the US Congress will in some way disrupt the Administration's efforts to strike a deal with Iran by provoking the Iranians. That is what the White House fears, and that explains its rage over Netanyahu's appearance. He must display seething rage. His mooslim base demands it ! Tehran may overplay its hand, but I do not think it will. The Persians are not the Palestinians, who discovered that they were a people only a generation ago and never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity; they are ancient and crafty, and know an opportunity when it presents itself.
Most of the world wants a deal, because the alternative would be war. For 10 years I have argued that war is inevitable whatever the diplomats do, and that the question is not if, but how and when.
President Obama is not British prime minister Neville Chamberlain selling out to Hitler at Munich in 1938: rather, he is Lord Halifax, that is, Halifax if he had been prime minister in 1938. Unlike the unfortunate Chamberlain, who hoped to buy time for Britain to build warplanes, Halifax liked Hitler, as Obama and his camarilla admire Iran.
China is Chamberlain, hoping to placate Iran in order to buy time. China's dependence on Middle East oil will increase during the next decade no matter what else China might do, and a war in the Persian Gulf would ruin it.
Until early 2014, China believed that the United States would guarantee the security of the Persian Gulf. After the rise of Islamic State (ISIS), it concluded that the United States no longer cared, or perhaps intended to destabilize the region for nefarious reasons. But China does not have means to replace America's presence in the Persian Gulf. Like Chamberlain at Munich, it seeks delay.
#1
Like Chamberlain at Munich, it seeks delay.
As Edmund Burke said: “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
Netanyahu understands history far better than Obama. Elie Wiesel most certainly understands the stakes involved. Obummer most likely missed those lessons when he was smoking with the "Choom Gang."
One question that has been nagging me is this: "Why the rush for a deal with Iran?" No one has been pushing for it except the Obama administration.
#2
One question that has been nagging me is this: "Why the rush for a deal with Iran?" No one has been pushing for it except the Obama administration.
One theory I've read is that he wants a legacy. Maybe. I mean, after all the failures in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere he might be craving some kind of success. But it's hard to imagine anybody being so stupid as to believe that somehow Iranians will end up liking him. They'll break whatever agreement is made and stomp all over Obama's legacy if the Israelis don't nuke them first.
Because ValJar knows that after '16 they may not be dealing with someone quite as full of { shit | himself } nor as foolish. Strike now while the iron is stupid and all that.
[Daily Caller] Fox News strategic analyst and retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said on "America's Newsroom" that the Democrats' response to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress was akin to "snitty, bitchy high school girls."
"I thought it was pretty damn sad that the American people have to hear the truth from the prime minister of Israel about Islamist fanaticism and the struggles we're seeing in the Middle Eats, and our own president won't even call it Islamic terrorism," Peters said. "There is no question the vituperative, vicious Democratic reaction to that speech was because Netanyahu told the truth and Obama has not. Netanyahu called him out."
"And this is a president who still has not leveled with the American people about why he is doing this deal, what the deal contains -- the Iranian nuke deal -- and what the threat is and is not," he continued. "So again, I thought Benjamin Netanyahu's speech was necessary, it was masterful, it was cogent, it was honest, it was inspiring, and Democrats in response, including the president, acted like snitty bitchy high school girls."
#2
Looking around him, they all seem to be a bunch of 'snitty, bitchy high school girls', so it kind of follows.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/05/2015 7:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Insulting 'Snitty, B*tchy High School Girls'? Their behavior usually is just late adolescent hierarchical sorting behaviors. They at least haven't sold their souls so deeply as yet in life.
“I would characterize this as a safety valve,” said Dow Constantine, the King County executive and chairman of Sound Transit, a transportation agency serving multiple counties in the region. From 1999 to 2012, Mr. Constantine said, 95 percent of the new households in King County have been either rich or poor, earning more than $125,000 a year or less than $33,000, with hardly anything in between.
“It’s people doing really well, and people making espresso for people who are doing really well,” he said.
That is a stunning split of economic status. Apparently poorer people can’t afford to live in Seattle, one of the country’s homes of tech wealth, and they commute in from outlying areas. The higher fares are too much for them to afford, so essentially the region is subsidizing transportation to ensure that the people doing really well continue to get their lattes.
#3
Considering MS, Intel, and the like have private busses, this is mostly about making sure that the food franchise and lawn care help go do their jobs.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/05/2015 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's always easier to spend Other Peoples money. Government enforcement of morality. Gee, it's wrong when the other people do it, but its OK for the Left to do it.
#6
Verification of "need" will require what documentation, or will it involve a presumptive racial component to fit with the "white privilege" mantra currently en vogue along with blatant socialism?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[LegalInsurrection] This isn't the first time we've seen a DefSec push back against the aspirational foreign policy goals of the Obama Administration. Before he was sloppily deposed, Chuck Hagel went on the record several times with information that contradicted the Administration's talking points about ISIS, Syria, and the continuing regional conflicts in the Middle East. Hagel refused to downplay the threat that ISIS poses to the international community, and both he and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey remained publicly at odds with the Administration over pledges to keep US troops out of combat.
