Showing posts with label British. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2015

The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism

London, UNITED KINGDOM:  Some 100 Muslims demonstraters from the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain protest US and British foreign policy outside the US Embassy, in central London, 19 August 2006. The group was calling for an end to the interference of Western governments in the Muslim world. AFP PHOTO/REBECCA REID  (Photo credit should read REBECCA REID/AFP/Getty Images)
Anti-extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz embodies grievances that liberals claim to care about. So why is he being viciously attacked by them?

The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.
Islam is a religion like any other. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslimssympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Armyreserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.
But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are notexpected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault. 
It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know, self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived. 
Finally, on July 20 the British Prime Minister David Cameron mustered the political will to deliver a comprehensive speech setting out the UK’s approach to tackling the long rising tide of theocratic extremism in our communities. At last, Cameron named and shamed the Islamist ideology as a major factor behind the rise of such extremism. As founding chairman of Quilliam—an organization that seeks to challenge Islamism though civic debate across political divides—I was proud to have played a role in advising Downing Street on some of the core messages for this speech. I did this despite my being a Liberal, and not a member of the Prime Minster’s Conservative party. I did this because extremism affects our national, not just party-political, interests.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

[OPINION] The gaping hole where the commander in chief should be by Monica Crowley

“I hope to God I know what I’m doing.”
Seventy-one years ago this week, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower turned to his staff and uttered this half-self-reassurance, half-prayer. On the eve of D-Day, even the wise, steady, old pro had his doubts about the mission, his leadership of it, and its potential for success.
Fortunately, Gen. Eisenhower did know what he was doing and had the guts to pull the trigger despite the inconceivable death and chaos he knew lay ahead. It had to be done if tyranny were to be crushed and freedom restored. On June 5, after getting final weather reports for the Normandy coast, Gen. Eisenhower stopped pacing and said firmly, “OK, let’s go.”
Would we recognize such exemplary leadership today?
Several weeks ago, I made a pilgrimage to Normandy to see the combat zones about which I had long read. We began in St. Mere Eglise, into which paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions drifted in the dark, early hours of June 6. From there, we stood at Pointe du Hoc, the 100-foot cliffs which the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion scaled in the face of unrelenting German fire. Past the cliffs lies Omaha Beach, site of the fiercest combat and greatest carnage of D-Day and the location of the heartbreakingly beautiful American cemetery. And further east, the British and Canadian beaches and German gun emplacements at Longues-su-mer.
At each site, I tried to imagine the incomprehensible violence — and the magnitude of what our brave soldiers achieved — that day, and in the days, weeks and months that followed.
Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves

These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves
One British town is in the renewable energy game for the long run — literally. The town bought two wind turbines that will take more than four centuries to pay for themselves.
The BBC reports that the two wind turbines installed in the English town of Rushcliffe will not likely produce any financial benefits for the town. Rushcliffe spent nearly $50,000 in 2004 installing the wind turbines at a county park, which doesn’t actually get much wind.
“Due to higher than anticipated maintenance costs and relatively low generation rates, it is unlikely the council will make a financial saving within the anticipated lifespan of the turbine,” said the Rushcliffe Borough Council.
The wind turbines’ poor location and mechanical problems mean that it only produced 477 kilowatt hours in 2012 and 2013. Last year, the turbine only generated about $121 worth of power, meaning that it would take 405 years for them to pay for themselves.
The Rushcliffe council, however, contended that the “meter wasn’t operating properly” and that the two turbines usually produce 3,478 kilowatt hours annually — which would still mean a 55-year payback period.
This information was obtained by the UK Telegraph as part of an in-depth investigation on how the towns all across the United Kingdom are spending millions of dollars on wind turbines that are faulty and don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves.
“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” Telegraph reported. “Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.”
Only three out of a handful of the towns that responded to the Telegraph’s inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods under ten years.
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Shutdown Delays U.N. Probe of U.S. Human Rights Record; GOP Blamed

UN(CNSNews.com) – A United Nations’ review of the United States’ compliance with international human rights norms will not happen as scheduled because of the partial government shutdown, and the chairman of the reviewing body blames the Republican Party.
The Geneva-based Human Rights Committee was due to have examined the U.S. record on Thursday and Friday, but reluctantly agreed to postpone the session at the request of the U.S. government.
The discussion, which is expected to include scrutiny of such controversial issues as Guantanamo Bay detentions, National Security Agency surveillance and “stand your ground” laws, has been moved to next March.
The committee’s chairman, Nigel Rodley, said as he opened a three-week session on Monday that the panel was normally unwilling to grant extensions at short notice, but he felt he had no choice on this occasion.
The U.S. delegation had made it clear that it was willing to participate in the scheduled review, but could not, “for reasons that had been widely covered in the media.”
Rodley, a British international law professor, then went further, laying the blame for the rare postponement squarely at the door of the GOP and its stance on Obamacare.
Via: CNS News
Continue Reading.....

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

And what’s right with President Obama?

Barack Obama is shown. | AP PhotoThe British have a saying about the twin rules of journalism: first simplify, then exaggerate.

Perhaps Barack Obama can comfort himself with the reality that his current travails are both more complicated in their causes and less dire in their consequences than they are being portrayed in the Washington echo chamber.

There is a useful cautionary note for everyone who is prone to withering judgments about Obama’s stumbling performances in recent weeks: No institution in American life is more resilient than the modern presidency, and no politician talented enough to capture the office should ever be underestimated.

Bill Clinton, of course, is the supreme example. He was counted out after a clumsy start in 1993, after losing the House in 1994, after a sex scandal in 1998, and, as a new ex-president, after a pardon scandal in 2001.

Barack Obama is a man of different talents, instincts and interests than Clinton. But now that Washington is in pile-on mode — including us — it’s not a bad time to remember that there are some reasons why he is among the most talented politicians of his generation.

Recent bad headlines have not diluted his enduring personal and political assets, and, so long as he occupies the White House, there is no other person with more power to set the national agenda.

In that spirit, here’s a roster of what’s still right with Obama:


Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes

Exclusive poll for The Independent sends clear message as David Cameron resists pressure for second vote

The Iraq War has turned the British public against any military intervention in the Middle East, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent.

By a margin of two-to-one, the British people oppose President Barack Obama’s plan for military strikes against the Assad regime and say that the UK should keep out of all conflicts in the region for the foreseeable future.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg yesterday rejected growing all-party pressure from MPs and peers for another Commons vote on whether British forces should join air strikes in Syria, only four days after MPs rejected the Prime Minister’s plan to take part.

But Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said the Government could revisit the question if circumstances changed “very significantly”.

Opinion at Westminster appears to be shifting in favour of action as the Obama administration produces more evidence about the horrific chemical weapons attack on a suburb near Damascus.
But Mr Cameron shows no signs of risking a second humiliating Commons defeat. Labour will not propose a second vote unless there is a “very significant” change, such as al-Qa’ida obtaining chemical weapons in Syria.


Sunday, August 25, 2013

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.
Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.
British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Report: British Government Thinks Strike On Iran Would Be Illegal, Denies US Access To Air Bases…


The British attorney general has circulated legal advice to the prime minister’s office, Foreign Office and Defense Ministry warning that a preemptive military strike on Iran could violate international law, the Guardian’s Nick Hopkins reports. The existence of this secret document suggests that the U.K. government believes that Iran does not currently meet the legal threshold for a “clear and present danger” that would merit such an attack.
Though Iran’s illegal uranium enrichment is moving it closer to the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon, U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe that Tehran has affirmatively decided to build a bomb. The British legal memo would seem to underscore this view, as well as raise the question of whether Iran would have to cross that line for a military strike to meet the requirements of international law.
The Guardian also reveals that the U.K. is using this legal document to deny the U.S. assistance in contingency planning for a strike on Iran. The U.S. is reportedly asking for access to British airbases that are strategically located on remote islands.
The bases aside, the apparently staunch U.K. opposition to working with the U.S. on this is striking, particularly after British Prime Minister Tony Blair so closely joined U.S. President George W. Bush in planning and executing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 2003 Iraq invasion became a source of considerable political backlash in the U.K., including a two-year official investigation that culminated in Blair being summoned to a bruising public inquiry.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more


The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.
Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.
Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.
’NET PROFIT: President Obama and Hillary Clinton are joined at a 2011 state dinner by Robert Roche (to Clinton’s right), who registered the site Obama.com, which directs visitors to a donation page.
’NET PROFIT: President Obama and Hillary Clinton are joined at a 2011 state dinner by Robert Roche (to Clinton’s right), who registered the site Obama.com, which directs visitors to a donation page.
“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”
In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.
The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”
“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” spokesman Michael Czin said.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book


Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

Via: Daily Caller


Continue Reading...

Popular Posts