Trifecta: Paris

There is simply nothing to add to this.

Except perhaps this. And yes, I do see many parallels between Corbyn’s Labor party and a large portion of our own Democratic Party, including its leadership.

Corbyn and his Marxist cronies see a terrorist victory as their path to power

The Labour party now has as its main objective the establishment of a socialist one-party republic. The Leader of the Opposition is a neo-communist, as is his shadow chancellor. They associate with neo-communist groups, like Owen Jones’s People’s Assembly.  The people Jeremy Corbyn is recruiting as his advisers follow in this tradition. They seem to see terrorism on British streets as a possible path to power.

Of course, as I have written before, they cannot openly admit their communism as the use of the c-word has invited ridicule since the fall of the Berlin Wall, if not before. The MPs of the Parliamentary Labour Party, most of whom did not vote for Corbyn even if some actually nominated him, are seen as irrelevant compared to the thousands of members, old and new, and the trades unions that are ranged in support of the new Labour leader. This is despite the fact that as MPs they have been elected by ordinary voters and not card-carrying union or party members and thus have the greatest democratic mandate within the party.

Labour’s rulebook makes it all but impossible to topple an incumbent Labour leader, a glaring but obviously socialistic omission compared to the party rules of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, which have both allowed MPs to oust clear vote-losers in a timely and efficient manner. Indeed, Corbyn is proposing a change in the rules to make it certain that he cannot be ousted, or if he is, he is replaced by a fellow-thinker.  Nominating Corbyn in the name of ‘widening the debate’ has been a disaster and an act of insane socialist doublethink by those MPs who did not support him.

Wanting to establish a socialist one-party republic is not a new aim of the Labour party. Leading figures of the Labour movement have wanted the establishment of a left-wing dictatorship before. The 1983 manifesto was more or less explicit about it. Back in the 1970s, the only dispute was exactly who would be in charge once this ‘socialist utopia’ had been established. Writing in The Spectator in 2009, Douglas Eden of the University of London tells of an argument between two hard-left Labour grandees:

I can still recall the knock-down argument at Blackpool between Jack Jones and Ian Mikardo, representing the union and parliamentary wings of the pro-Soviet Left respectively, as to whether the coming far-left government of their desire would be run by the TUC General Council (or Soviet?) or the Parliamentary Labour Party. They infuriated each other, and left the meeting without shaking hands or resolving the argument. The revolution was not in question — its proponents were arguing over who should control post-revolutionary power.”

Source: Paul T Horgan: Corbyn and his Marxist cronies see a terrorist victory as their path to power


Jeremy Corbyn (and Others) aren’t anti-war. They’re just anti-West

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is from The Spectator (UK), and it’s about Jeremy Corbyn (the head of the Labor party). I think the author, Nick Cohen, is precisely on point. But I don’t think Corbyn is the only one. I would posit that anyone taking that position, and that includes all of the Democratic candidates for President and Obama as well, is in the same place.

To me, at least, it disqualifies all of them from leading our governments, a leader should have the well-being of the led as his first priority, and these people obviously do not.

Before the bodies in Paris’s restaurants were cold, Jeremy Corbyn’s Stop the War Coalition knew who the real villains were — and they were not the Islamists who massacred civilians. ‘Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East’ ran a headline on its site. The article went on to say that the consequence of the West’s ‘decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention’.

This flawless example of what I once called the ‘kill us, we deserve it’ school of political analysis takes us to the heart of Corbyn’s beliefs. Even his opponents have yet to appreciate the malign double standards of the new Labour party, though they ought to be clear for all to see by now.

Whatever its protestations, Corbyn’s far left is not anti-war. Pacifism may not be a moral position in all circumstances but, in my view at least, it remains an honourable belief, rooted in Christian teaching. Corbyn does not share it. He does not oppose violence wherever it comes from, as the BBC’s political editor claimed this week. When anti-western regimes and movements go to war, his language turns slippery. Corbyn never quite has the guts to support the violence of others, but he excuses it like a gangster’s lawyer trying to get a crime boss off on a technicality.

He defended the Russian invasion of Ukraine by saying the West had provoked the Kremlin. His spin-doctor, Seumas Milne of the Guardian, the nearest thing you can find to a Stalinist in the 21st century, joined the leaders of Europe’s far-right parties at Putin’s propaganda summits. Meanwhile Corbyn and John McDonnell have defended the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas. Like many on the far left (and right), they are pro-Assad. So committed to Syrian Ba’athism are Stop the War that they tried to stop Syrian refugees from Assad’s terror speaking at their meetings.

Source: Jeremy Corbyn isn’t anti-war. He’s just anti-West » The Spectator

But let’s simplify it a bit. Here’s Bill Whittle o do exactly that.


As Kipling said:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

Whittle, Cruz, and Polls

Bill Whittle on Ted Cruz and media bias.

You know that may explain something. Have you noticed, as I have, that in the age of Obama, we conservatives/Republicans (whatever, whichever, and don’t forget right libertarians either) can’t seem to win a national election, but we have something like 75% of the state legislatures, most of the governorships, and everything else? Could this be the effect of the media’s completely unbecoming (and beclowning) love for Obama? I think it might be.

We’ll see, if the presidential candidates can manage to quit thinking that they can ingratiate themselves with the hostile media, and play through (around, over, and under) them, to the people, we may see both the demise of some very rotten edifices and a fresh new breeze in politics.

Frankly I have no problem with biased press outlets, they always have been. Don’t believe me? Look into the election of 1800. Our problem today is that they are all biased one way. Nor does it help that they are catastrophically wrong, unAmerican, anti-Christian, and a few other things, not to mention very, very intolerant.

I think this may very well be connected as well

For the most part, with some notable exceptions, the polls have been pretty accurate predictors of presidential and midterm elections. That was until the recent midterm elections in the United States in 2014. While they predicted the GOP would pick up some senate seats with an outside chance, if everything went right, of taking over the Senate, none of the polls predicted the tsunami wave by the GOP in not just winning the senate easily with room to spare, but also with big gains by the GOP in the House of Representatives and in pickups in the state houses and governorships.

The reliability of the polls was questioned by some, but not by many as you could say one election, as big as it was, do not the polls make. But then you had a couple of big foreign elections that were missed by the pollsters and missed in a huge way.

In March of 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party won in a landslide victory, and re-elected for an un-precedented 4th time Bibi Netanyahu as Prime Minister, that no poll showed would happen. In fact, every single poll in Israel just days before the election had Netanyahu and Likud losing and losing in a big way.

Then in May of 2015, you had polls showing that in Great Britain there was a very tight race for Prime Minister with a good chance the Conservative Party was about to be thrown out of power. What happened, a huge win for the conservative party and re-election of David Cameron as Prime Minister.

So, beginning with the 2014 Midterm elections, and continuing with major elections in Israel and Great Britain in 2015, the polls have been not just wrong, but not even close to predicting the correct results.

You might conclude that it shows you can’t rely on the polls in a major general election not just in the United States but around the world. No, that would be the wrong conclusion. That is one of the secondary conclusions you might surmise from this downward slide of accuracy by major pollsters but not the correct one.

There is one common thread that those variances of what the election results showed with the polling results before hand. In the United States midterms, and in Israel, and in Great Britain, the pollsters were wrong and wrong in a big way, all in one direction. Their polls were all off in determining the strength of the conservatives [party’s/individual candidates] in those countries and in overstating the strength of the liberals [party’s/individual candidates]. Could that possibly be just an amazing coincidence or indicative of skewed polling results that we will be seeing in future elections? Fool us with one bad polling result, shame on you. Fool us with 3 bad polling results, and we still believe in you, shame on us.

Source: Reliability of General Election Polls Continue Downward Slide In One Direction.

Do you follow my reasoning here? Again we have a business based and linked to both the national governments, and the corrupt press, who pays their bills. Yes, there are new difficulties in polling, such as so many people no longer having landline telephones (and others). But while that could well affect accuracy, one would expect it to effect it in both directions, but that’s not what we’re seeing, is it? It’s always favoring the more liberal (American sense) candidate, and never the more conservative (Classically liberal). And so as it becomes an increasingly inaccurate tool, something will have to change like, I don’t know, real reporting, maybe!

The Great Unlearning

I’m playing with some video-based series, but they’re not in shape yet. But, sadly, I have little to disagree with Bill Whittle here.

Sad and disheartening stuff isn’t it?

Pin the Tale on the Donkey

Bill Whittle on the Democratic Party


It’s a bit of a polemic, but it is not inaccurate.


From the sound of it, Bill Whittle didn’t much like this movie

It’s hard to believe they could screw up that vision, of our childhood, even in a movie isn’t it?

But they did, and worse they screwed up the vision of the country that had that vision as well.

%d bloggers like this: