Another Attempt by Obama to Force Britain into the EU.

Thanks to my fellow Anglo American commentator Nile Gardiner for picking this story up, that has gone almost entirely unnoticed by the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic.  Apparently the Obama administration has started another push to get America's once strongest ally further into the quicksand of the European Union.  This time it is diplomat Louis Susman (American ambassador to the UK) who has been running his mouth off.  In a private meeting with British MEPs this week in the European Parliament, Susman called for a stronger commitment to the failing EU by Great Britain.

"Speaking in parliament on Tuesday, Susman signalled that Washington wants a clearer British commitment to remain in the EU, saying “I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU.

“The US does not want to see Britain’s role in the EU diminished in any way.

“The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU.

Susman, who took up his current post a year ago, added, “This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global challenges facing us, including climate change and security."

Although it is most certainly not unheard of for allies to express opinions on various international issues that effect the other nation, to push for something that every single opinion poll shows that the British public are against is distasteful at best, and at worst it is downright insulting.  America should be supporting its allies, not challenging them at every possible opportunity.

The statement is also quite wrong.  I will ignore the vagueness of "dealing with climate change", as we already know that for the Obama administration the science is unquestionable and "dealing" with the problem involves as much big government as is humanly possible.  However, the idea that if Britain hands over its sovereignty to the hard-left, anti-American, pacifist EU then this will be excellent for "security", then Mr Susman is either delusional or a fool.

When will the Obama administration understand that the EU is not America's friend.  It is filled with American hating lefties, and it doesn't change just because they have a Democrat in office.  If America wants an ally in Europe, then Britain (as always) is its best hope.  Trying to push Britain into the EU will only make Britain weaker, and damage Anglo-American relations, which will ultimately harm America.

While creating an European megastate may fit in with Obama's left-wing view of the world, it will do nothing for America's interests.  It is for this reason that America should oppose this pushy new attitude towards their best ally, and stop Obama from doing even more harm to the national interest of America, and the interests of her allies.

"The West is Evil!!.....but I'll take their welfare...."

There are only very few Brits who I would describe as Anglo-American commentators.  I am one of course!  The other two whom I respect the most are Nile Gardiner - mentioned many times before on this blog, and the other is Daniel Hannan MEP.

Daniel has that excellent ability to squeak out issues that many other commentators have missed entirely, and then brutally nail that issue home, usually showing how ridiculous one leftist policy or another really is.  Sure enough, he has done the same today with an excellent article on the disproportionate amount of Islamic extremists who just happen to be claiming welfare in Britain.

Now, apart from the obvious outrage that always ensues when we find out that our taxes are going towards funding the families and lifestyles of people who would like nothing more than to kill our citizens and blow up our buildings, Hannan's point goes deeper and asks whether welfare dependency is in fact a contributive factor in the extremism we see in many young men in Britain.

Now, before my readers start getting upset, thinking that I have gone soft, I am not arguing that it is all our fault, and that terrorist are all just poor victims etc etc.  What I am arguing (and I believe Mr Hannan is as well although he does not say so specifically) is that Islamic terrorists and those who sympathise with them, before they attack anyone, first have to create a world of make believe for themselves.

This isn't just meant in a religious sense, but in the sense that they sit around with a false view of the world, completely separate from it, and have no interaction with the people that they hate so much.  Jobs, and more specifically integration into the capitalist system, helps to solve this problem.

By this I mean that it is much harder to hate "Western Civilisation" if you are a living, breathing part of it, or connected to it in some way.  So if you are an English Muslim who gets up every morning, prays, and then simply scowls at people who are on their way to work, it is a lot easier to convince yourself that they are the enemy.  However, if you are part of that group of people making the commute to work, you quickly realise that they are just trying to make it, and be self-sufficient.  Plus, it instills ambition - the idea that there are goals and aims that one might want to achieve in this life, not just the next.  The focus becomes on providing for one's loved ones, and for oneself, as opposed to simply sitting around hating people

This can be shown on a global scale as well.  Countries that become more globalised and enter into the capitalist system are generally more moderate than those that are not.  Vali Nasr is an excellent author on this issue (I have mentioned his name before) and he points to Turkey, which has much more moderate strains of Islam as opposed to places such as Iran.  The reason for this is that Iran has a boxed-in mentality of us vs them, hatred of everyone else who is not a fundamentalist.  However, Turkey  has entered into the capitalist system, and it is much harder to hate those who your are trading with.

All of a sudden it is not "The West" but various companies and individuals whom the country is buying and selling from.  Turkey and its citizens now have a mutual relationship and interest with people abroad, and destroying those other people would not help them.  Plus, capitalism always leads to financial stability and economic growth, two factors that are deadly to Islamic Fundamentalism.

So, while on the international scale we can work to push capitalist models in those extremist countries, and to encourage the growth of an Islamic middle class, we can also do that closer to home by ending welfare dependency.  The idea that we can essentially pay young British Muslims to stop holding radical ideas is nonsensical. These people need to integrate themeselves into the societies in which they live.  This will ultimately not be done by expensive government programs, schemes, and initiatives, but by forcing them to provide for themselves and their families.

The rise of an Islamic middle class both in Britain and internationally is nothing to fear, but this will not be created by pandering to nations like Iran, and handing out overly generous welfare payments to those at home who hate the country in which they live.

Liberal Democrats - "The Prisoners Must Be Able to Vote!"

I always say that one of the reasons I never made it as a left-wing sort of person (as I flirted with being in my teens) is because my brain isn't wired in the way it needs to be wired for one to be left-wing.  This is especially the case with the British Liberal Democrats (who are neither liberal in the traditional sense, nor particularly democratic.)

It is a peculiar person who watches a criminal being carted off to prison and immediately thinks "Oh no!  I hope his rights are being protected!"  Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for no rights for criminals, but the unusual fervour with which the left desperately seek out more and more advanced rights than criminals are being "denied" is very difficult to work out at times.

So today, when I saw that the Lib Dems are back on their old hobby horse of trying to give prisoners voting rights again, I had to really sit back in wonder at them all over again.  However, when one thinks about it, it is not particularly strange that the Lib Dems are very keen on this measure, and it is in fact very clever, and a particular characteristic of many left-wing parties internationally.  Nile Gardiner has a great analysis of Clegg and co's decision to go ahead with this surge, and he points to Clegg's ideological dedication to unification with the EU, who needless to say are so keen that prisoners get voting rights, that they want them to sue the taxpayer for compensation!  Yeh, amazing isn't it?

However, the segment I feel that Gardiner misses out on is that political parties always canvass for votes, and left-wing campaigners have a habit of trying to create new segments that they can "protect" and therefore gain votes for life from.  It has been very successful.  For instance, it is no coincidence that a great many of those who vote for massive tax-rises by voting for left-wing parties don't happen to pay any income tax themselves.  In America, Obama is trying to grant amnesty to tonnes of illegal immigrants - he knows that the second they become citizens, they will probably vote Democrat.

So, back to the Lib Dems and prisoners.  We know that prisoners will be interested in a number of things. 

1) Prison conditions

2) Shorter prison sentences

3) General soft attitude to crime

4) Voting (maybe)

5) Welfare (a high proportion of criminals will be on welfare at some point.)

Now, look back over that list and who do you think covers most of those points?  Thats right, the Lib Dems!  They know that they will get tens of thousands more votes, some in tight constituencies, should the prison population be able to vote.  It is an extraordinarily cynical move, and it will do a lot of damage in the long term.  For instance, it will encourage politicians, specifically left-wing politicians, to scramble over one another in a race to be more "compassionate" and "understanding" towards criminals, who after all are only "victims of society themselves."

One may argue that nationally, the prison population is relatively insignificant.  Maybe, but in constituencies with a large prison, it could be enormous.  MP's in those constituencies will pander more to the voices of prisoners than they will to the voices of teachers, doctors, nurses, business owners, members of emergency services etc.  The prison population will become a powerful advocacy group in certain areas, and will therefore have significant influence on policy.

This should not be allowed to happen.  Conservatives forced into this current alliance with the Lib Dems should break off and condemn the scheme as insulting to law-abiding citizens, insulting to the victims of crime, and ultimately as a cynical ploy for more votes that will only contribute to the break down of law and order that left-wing parties always encourage without fail.