Cameron's Leadership on Libya is Humiliating for Obama and America

Cameron speaks, Obama just watches

In a typical Anglo-American relationship, Britain and America stand side by side in the face of international danger, but with America standing as the bigger brother.  Yet with the Obama/Clinton incompetence over the Libyan situation, David Cameron has had to take the lead and direct the international community to fulfill its moral responsibilities.

The lack of voice from the Obama administration has meant that in this version of the Anglo-American relationship, it is not enough to just say that Britain has changed to the role of bigger brother, and America has reverted to the role of smaller brother.  Instead, Obama has reduced America to a helpless child that needs to be carried around by adult, responsible Great Britain.  The world is noticing.

Do not get me wrong on this, I do not believe that America lacks either the will or the resources to be a world leader, and to act in a strong, bold way on the crisis in Libya - it is just that its current leaders have deliberately chosen not to.  Obama is an old school 1970's pacifist, and hates the idea of America being the leader in any international conflict, even if it is a multilateral intervention.  He does not want to spend any money on helping freedom prosper throughout the world - he is too busy inventing new welfare plans back home!

Other countries have the luxury of being quiet for a while on international affairs - America does not.  America is known for being both the home and the defender of freedom.  As much as trendy lefties like Obama hate this role for America, the fact is that most people in the world want America to act like this, especially those under the iron fist of tyranny.  America's silence on this crisis in Libya is deafening as a result.

Although we certainly cannot be expected to intervene in every issue of human rights abuses all over the world, the fall of Gaddafi would be an enormous victory for the West.  Not only would the fall be a coup for Britain and America, it is vital that a good, pro-Western leadership replaces him, and it is for that reason that the West needs to guide this revolution in a way that will suit our nations' interests.

This silence from the Obama Administration on this issue is contrasted by the strong voice of British leader David Cameron - not known for his hawkish attitude towards foreign policy.  For the first time since the outbreak of World War II, it is Britain, not America that is leading on an international crisis.  Yet this does not show the strength of Britain, for Britain has very limited defence resources at the moment.  Instead it shows the weakness of America under Obama, and this sends out very clear messages to both America's allies, and to its enemies.

This crisis represents the fall of America as the international leader, and what is so tragic is that this fall has nothing to do with the might, the power, or the will of the United States as a whole.  Instead, its fall is solely due to the moral cowardice, and the outdated leftism, of the Obama administration that is forcing the nation to abandon its principles, its allies, and its status as the leader of the free world.

The Left's Hijacking of "Gay Rights" Has Backfired.

The term "gay rights" is one we are hearing a lot on both sides of the Atlantic right now, and it is one of those warm fuzzy phrases that we are likely to implicitly agree with before we hear what it actually entails.  The term has progressed from referring to the right of people of a certain sexuality to live their lives in freedom without interference from the state, to a whole bunch of "issues" that always require state intervention, government funding, and the making illegal of opposing opinions.

This is what my latest article in "The Grapevine" is about, and specifically how such a conception of gay rights has actually backfired on the gay community.  The gay community needs to move away from this hard left sense of entitlement, as they are beginning to do in the USA, and come back to a true conception of liberty for all.

"The phrase “gay rights” is one of those slippery left-wing terms I have always been very suspicious of, just like “equality”, “compassion”, “community” and “development.” It is not that I am against equality, compassion, communities or development, or even gay rights, it is just that I don’t think that when left-wing special interest groups employ such terms, that they mean the same as what I mean.

Therefore when asked if I am “for or against gay rights”, I always answer in the affirmative, believing that all people should be free to believe and do whatever they wish to believe and do, as long as they are not harming others or infringing on the liberty of others. Yet it seems that – according to left-wing special interest groups – that if I state that I am “for gay rights”, then I must actively support – and want the government funding of – all sorts of flags, practices, schemes, initiatives etc, and must also support the illegalisation and censorship of anyone who dares disagree.

As you may be able to tell from the tone of this article, I do not support such nonsense. People should be left well alone whenever possible, and forcing other people to pay for various schemes that vary from the noble to the downright silly – and declaring people to be “homophobic” if they object – is not my idea of liberty. Additionally, the demand of “gay rights” groups not for actual equality, but for special treatment, will only harm gay people in the long term as their sexuality becomes a narrow political banner instead of a facet of their personality.

This has been shown predictably in the last week, where the latest “gay rights” crusade has backfired on the special interests groups and threatens to hurt everyone involved. Most people will remember the case a few months ago of the Christian Bed and Breakfast owners who catered only to married straight couples. A gay couple complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, won a load of compensation and had the B&B shut down. Cue much celebration from gay rights group “Stonewall”, who declared it to be a great day for gay rights.

Unfortunately, now the EHRC has noticed that if they follow their legal principle that businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate, then gay B&B’s could be shut down on the same principle. The same could also happen to apartment buildings that cater exclusively to gay people, as well as gay bars and restaurants that encourage a predominately gay clientele.

Of course this has caused much celebration from many people who were outraged that a Christian B&B was set to be shut down, feeling that the gay rights groups have got their just desserts. The gay rights groups are celebrating at the misery of the Christians, and Christian groups are celebrating at the misery of the gay rights groups.

Yet my question in all this is “Who wins?” Who wins by the Christian or a gay B&B being shut down? Would a gay couple really want to go to a B&B whose owners did not approve of them? Would a straight person wish to infringe upon a gay business that wished to cater only to people of a certain sexuality? Won’t Stonewall’s claims of moral victory sound slightly macabre when gay businesses all around the country are forced to disband, and the unemployment rate amongst the gay community increases?...."

The rest of the article can be found here.

Cuts? What Cuts?

My latest article in "The Grapevine" went up the other day, and therefore I am linking it to the blog.  This week's article focuses on the myth that Britain is entering an era of "savage" cuts and an "era of austerity".  Actually, spending is set to go up for the next few years, so the damage of these cuts is massively exaggerated.

However, what the reaction to these "cuts" also shows is that there is a deliberate political trick on the part of left wing special interests to make these cuts hurt more than they usually would, as well as showing the need that the public sector has to continually eat into an economy in order for it to remain workable.  If we are going to get our economy back in order, there needs to be a stop to these games and tricks - it is time to admit that public sector spending at such a large rate simply does not work!

"Apparently we are now in the era of austerity, the era of savage cuts! We are about to see the libraries closing, entire bands of nurses being thrown onto the unemployment line, schools being shut down and of course that old left-wing media catchphrase – “the poorest and most vulnerable being hit hardest.” Or are we?

The so-called cuts are being spun by the left as much as possible in order to create mass displeasure at “savage Tory cuts.” The lesson that the public is supposed to draw is that the cuts are harsh, cruel and are going to lead to a new Dickensian nightmare. Throw in a few snarky remarks about Eton and you have almost every Guardian editorial on economics for the last 9 months.

The problem with all this is that it isn’t really true. Despite the rhetoric there are no net spending cuts. Public spending is actually going to increase over the next few years, but will not increase as much as it otherwise would. Only then will it begin to shrink in real terms, and will eventually return to 2008-9 levels by 2016. Considering 2008-9 was not exactly a fiscally responsible period, it is tough to see what the fuss is all about.

So, why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth then? For it cannot be in doubt that there are serious predictions that services will take a hit, that there will be job losses, and that budgets will be cut due to the fact that the public sector counts on continued expansion. There are two explanations for this, neither of which makes the left look particularly good.

The first explanation is that there is a mix of opportunism and exaggeration involved here. Left-wing politicians, union officials and special interests see that there is a re-interpretation of the role of the state at play here, and they want it stopped. Therefore it is in their interests to make these “cuts” as painful as possible, and to exaggerate how difficult they will be...."

The rest of the article can be found here.

Public Sector Unions - Ugh!

Public sector unions are one of the best ways in which to destroy a country or state, and areas in the United States such as Wisconsin are currently discovering this.  Unions form unchallenged monopolies in major services in an area, get themselves control of the purse strings and the politicians, and then ruthlessly use their power for their own interests.  If anyone then dares to challenge that power, then they are viciously attacked, while the industry/service is brought to a standstill until the challengers (usually a mix of the public and elected politicians - how dare they?) back down and give in to even more of the public union demands.

Britain knows all about this.  Amongst the many times unions have screwed over Britain, the most notable in the Miners Strikes in the 1980's.  The country was dragged into what was essentially a civil war when the National Union of Coalminers - headed by Stalinist Arthur Scargill - tried to bring down the new Conservative government.  In fairness, they were pretty used to bringing the nation to a halt, as they had been doing it all through the 1970's.  It was only when they came head to head with new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when they realised they had a real fight on their hands.

So, public unions are a pain.  Yet this has never quite got over to the public at large, and I think this is in part because people like the concept of "unions", but they simply haven't made the distinction between private sector unions, and public sector unions.  

The Heritage Foundation has released a video explaining the difference, and showing just how damaging public sector unions and collective bargaining can be.  I thoroughly recommend this video, and hope that you enjoy it!

Abolish the Corporation Tax!!

I'm a little late putting this one on the blog, but here is my latest article in "The Grapevine" - this time it is on the corporation tax, and how it shouldn't be kept as it is, or reduced, but abolished entirely!

I get annoyed with the corporation tax for a number of reasons - in part because it is a tax that reeks of that annoying student mentality that thinks itself urban and trendy because it buys crap coffee from the local FairTrade stall as opposed to one of those evil Starbucks things with their good coffee and nice places to sit!  However, this article attempts to present the argument against the corporation tax on the basis of honesty and who it actually taxes.  It also takes on the idea that tax avoidance (as opposed to tax evasion) is a bad thing.

"Last week’s protests by UK Uncut at Barclays brought up the old chestnut of corporations and their supposed “duty” to jump various hurdles and pay certain taxes designed especially for them.

Groups such as UK Uncut believe that tax avoidance, practiced by corporations such as Barclays, is immoral. Accompanying that view is usually the opinion that the rate of corporation tax is too low. Both views are incorrect.

First, there is nothing immoral about avoiding tax. Tax evasion – that is the deliberate non-payment of tax legally owed – is of course illegal, and no-one is defending illegality even if one may criticise the law. Tax avoidance however, is not only legal, it also a natural and even a wise practice for any person or business to engage in. Tax avoidance is merely an attempt to limit the amount of tax that one needs to pay.

This may sound controversial but in reality it is not. Did the UKUncut crowd judge those shoppers who packed out stores in late December in order to avoid the VAT hike? Are they planning to blockade the coach and trucking companies that fill their tanks up abroad in order to pay less for petrol? If I am in America and choose to purchase a product in Texas instead of England due to the fact that there is no sales tax in Texas, should I be then subjected to a dishevelled crowd of students with poorly constructed signs blocking the entrance to my home?..."

The rest of the piece can be found here.

The Left Have Slowed Down Gaddafi's Departure

First, apologies for not having blogged for a few days - I decided to take a week off to clear my head from politics, but I am back now!

It looks like the Gaddafi regime in Libya may finally be over.  Although he is clinging to power, it looks unlikely that Gaddafi will last the week in the face of enormous riots and protests at his tyrannical regime.  This is marvellous news.  Unlike Egypt, where the jury is still out on what the result is going to be, and whether it will be better or worse than Mubarak, in Libya it really can't be any worse than Gaddafi.  He is one of the most toxic and evil dictators in history, is extremely anti-Western (but pro-Obama!) and is responsible for the Lockerbie bombing - the worst terrorist attack in history on British soil.

Recent pro-democracy protests in the Middle East have not helped the left-wing, especially their argument of "Ohh, people in the Middle East don't want democracy, that's a Western concept!"  Recent events have shown this argument once again to be condescending, wrong-headed, and just plain incorrect.  However, the ousting of Gaddafi causes some other rather uncomfortable problems for the British left.

You see, before Obama there was Blair.  The American left should be aware that all this "let's all get along, even if you are a nutball dictator" is not a new Obama concept - it has been tried before.  This is especially the case in Britain where it has been tried from Chamberlain to Blair.

Just before he ceased to be Prime Minister, Tony Blair (in what was an effort to make his left-wing base more comfortable after going along with the invasion of Iraq - a surprisingly right-wing move) stretched out his hand to Gaddafi, kissed and made up about what went on in the past, secured the release of the Lockerbie bomber (unknown to the public at the time), and came back with some pretty hefty oil contracts.  The moral justification of this was that Gaddafi was set to be dictator for the long term future and that we should come to terms with it.  Instead of trying to oust Gaddafi, we should try to "dialogue" with him, which would moderate him and therefore be good for both countries.

So now Gaddafi has been proven to be oust-able, it makes Britain look like a collaborator in keeping him in power for as long as he has been.  International figures have already started to comment on this, the most notable being Louis Susman - the US ambassador to London - who has blamed the British policy for keeping Gaddafi in power and giving him international legitimacy.

Susman for once is absolutely right.  The silence from the Labour party on Libya over the last week is very telling - they know that their policy on this matter was wrong, and they have egg on their faces.  They took a gamble, both morally and economically, and it has failed.  Britain's moral standing has taken a hit, and the oil deals that have been gambled upon could fall through the floor.  Libyans who have seen Britain collaborate with their now hated leader will not forget their betrayal by what is supposed to be one of the leaders of the free world.  It will make any relations with Libya an a post-Gaddafi Libya very difficult indeed for Great Britain.

Once again, under the banner of "peace", "dialogue" and "realism", the left-wing have collaborated with evil tyrants and dictators, and this time it has backfired.  It will take a long time to undo the damage that has been done, both to Libya and to Britain, by the British left.

Do Tories Really Hate Books and Trees?

My latest column for "The Grapevine" is up, and focuses on the current debates in the UK about libraries and forests, and the relative defunding of each.  The article seeks to respond to the horror that the idea of privatisation has triggered in the minds of so many of the British public.  It argues that privatisation is not a terrible thing that destroys those goods and services that we love, but improves them and makes them better.

Of course, the fact that such an argument needs to be made, and is seen as rocking the boat, indicates just how far left British society has moved in the last ten years or so.

"One of the more worrying aspects of the political atmosphere in the so-called “austerity era” is that it is becoming clear just how much the public at large has bought into the left-wing concept that supporting something means throwing government money at it, and therefore taking money away from it means that someone must be against the project or scheme in question.

We have seen this in the last week with both libraries and forests. The prospect of cuts and sell-offs in both these areas has been met by howls of anguish by the political left and special interests who have concluded that this means that Tories hate libraries, books, trees and fluffy bunnies. From recent polls, it seems that the public has been swayed by this argument.

The logic is clear: if you like forests and libraries, then you must unquestioningly pump billions into nationalised libraries and subsidised forests, and if you so much as squeak in objection then you will be condemned as someone who hates greenery and poor people being able to access books.

Of course, this is complete nonsense when stated out loud, and yet it is an assumption that so many make. Yet there are many ways of supporting and preserving something through the private sector..."

The rest of the article can be found here.