FLIP FLOP ROMNEY'S AIDE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

This video speaks for itself. 


In fact we all know that that is what the potential candidates have to do. They must appeal to the more lunatic fringes of the party when they are campaigning to be the candidate. But the minute that they have to face the electorate in the Presidential election, all the nuttiest stuff has to be dumped. 


It's just that this is the first time that a senior aide of any potential has actually come out and admitted that they intend starting again from zero if and when they are on the real campaign trail. As you can see from this video, the Democrats are having fun with it.


Incidentally, as Danny never tires of reminding me, the presidential starts in the snows of New England in January (although this year it started in Iowa on January 3), and it ends in November, with the actual election. 


Who the hell would put themselves through that, and having done it, will they be in any fit shape to take over running the Western world?

WIKILEAKS: THE POLL...AND THE FUTURE

I’d like to thank everyone who took part in the poll (which I didn’t really announce, but just stuck there) on whether WikiLeaks were a good or bad thing.

A majority said that they thought a good thing (78% is pretty conclusive). One person could care less... representing 5% of the votes and 3 voted “bad” representing 15%.

I should have introduced the subject in an article, but the idea came to me when there was something else to post... so sorry about that. It may explain the very small number of voters.

I voted good, and I have been fulsome in my praise of Julian Assange. I was disappointed on the day that he gave away details of places, plants, installations, etc, which were vital to security and economy of America. That was wrong in my opinion. However, overall I’ve not changed my mind.

I believe that the extradition application is trumped up. They have chosen a “crime” that most people will find distasteful. The US government has cobbled together something too and may also ask for Assange. In theory as Sweden got in first they should have precedence, but as we all know American presidents or secretaries of states only have to make one phone call to overturn British policy on any subject. That reminds me of the minds of Alan Johnston or Vince Cable.

The magistrate who refused his bail despite Assange having gone to the police voluntarily, despite his surety being £100,000, backed by well known people, and despite the prisons being full, says that he fears the man would flee the country. But that’s highly unlikely given that he would be obliged to surrender his passport, and surely the border guards must be aware of Mr Assnage’s face by now.

I suspect that he may be looking for a seat in the House of £300+ a day.

But despite Mr Assange’s custody, the leaks continue. Despite efforts to close the websites and starve the organization of cash, Wikileaks are now mirrored by hundreds of sites all over the world... plus an email, or a letter, to the newspapers covering the story would suffice to continue the leaks. They must all exist in paper form by now....somewhere.

The “Authorities” in the UK and around Europe, not to mention the USA, would do well to tread carefully. They seem to have no idea just how angry people are.

We have been lied to; our troops have been sent on pointless missions where they have died, relatively frequently in “friendly fire” incidents; despite our best efforts we appear to have been thought useless by America and Afghanistan alike.

Our banks have been bailed out with our money, which they are now refusing to use for our good; a few stupid people have ruined people’s lives and made others very much harder; our politicians have been stealing from us, and continue to do so; our government in London has been crawling up America’s backside and doing us down in the process. And now to cap it all we are suffering the worst winter weather in decades, just as fuel companies are lying to us about why they are putting up fuel prices by more than twice the rate of inflation.

No one believes a word any politician says now, and yet the London lot address each other as Honourable, Rt Honourable and bloody Noble when many of them are quite simply the dregs of humanity.

Something has changed, and I don't think it will change back.

Pics: (1) Julian Assange in a nicer place than he is tonight; (2) Wikileaks, our opportunity to see just how much lying they've been doing; (3) One seriously angry group of people done over by their governments and their banks in Eire. It's possibly their standards of living will have to fall as far as parity with the UK's! No wonder they are angry.

WIKILEAKS COMES TO SCOTLAND

I listened to Alex Salmond on the Today Programme this morning. He occupied the peak listening slot at 8.10 am normally given to very senior English politicians.

The main thrust of the interview was the Al Megrahi compassionate release question and its re-emergence into the public’s eye today grace à Wikileaks.

In fact the leaks tell us virtually nothing new. They confirm that the British (English) government was told that if Mr Al Megrahi died in a Scottish prison the Libyans would punish Britain economically. An American diplomat used the expression “cut off at the knees”. Apart from that phrase, we knew all that anyway.

We knew that Blair made a deal with Kaddafi on prisoner transfer (which, in fact, was probably out with his remit to do); we knew that the British Foreign Secretary wrote to the Scottish Government saying that it would not be in British interests if the prisoner died in a Scottish jail; we knew that the Libyan Foreign Ministry contacted the Scottish government and offered “treats and blandishments”, which were turned down.

We also knew, because it was laid out to us in the simplest terms, the steps which Scots Law demanded be taken in the case of a person considered to be dying in prison. We know that these steps were followed to the letter. We know too that there was some politicking by Labour and the Tories, but that no senior legal figure has come forward to dispute that what was done was correct.

Alex Salmond performed faultlessly. In a calm and measured tone, with none of hysterical arguments or the trotting out of the latest political buzz phrase so habitual at 8.10, he explained that Wikileaks had told us little that was new. He agreed that he had spoken with the Edinburgh Consul General of the United States Government. He agreed that the just of what he had said was transmitted on to Washington, although not in the exact language that he had used.

Reflecting on the circumstances I can see no reason, other than the one that Alex offered, for releasing Al Megrahi. The government knew that it was dealing with a situation with ramifications well beyond Scottish shores, and most importantly in America. It will not have been lost upon them how much America could hurt Scotland economically. When France refused to join its illegal war in Iraq, it was rewarded by a ‘hate France’ campaign which not only involved changing the name of French Fries, but was economically damaging to France particularly in wine exports and tourism! Scotland’s tourism industry is hugely dependent on American visitors. Its whisky exports to America are not insubstantial. The release risked damaging these businesses.

What measures Libya could take against Scotland along these lines is not clear. The threats made were against the British government and presumably had to do with arms sales and oil exploration. Given that the British government had treated the new Scottish government with distaste and disdain, and that relations between Alex and Brown were abysmal, it seems unlikely that the Scottish government would have risked Scottish tourism to save British armaments.

In all his dealings with the United States, with the UK government, with John Humphries this morning, and with our own parliament and people, Alex Salmond has shown that the process was both thought out and carried out in accordance with the principles of Scots Law.

Great post here.

CAMERON REDEFINES SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THEY ARE SPECIAL AND WE ARE NOT!

The prime minister, David Cameron, has described Britain, in an interview with Time Magazine, as the junior partner in the special relationship between the UK and the US. The prime minister topped that by saying that Britain should not be too "needy" of America. The article was published on the eve of Mr Cameron’s first visit as prime minister to the United States.

Cameron defended the notion of the special relationship and called it "essential", but nonetheless injected a sense of hierarchy. He said: "I believe in the special relationship. I think Britain is, of course, the junior partner, but I think it is an important and long-standing relationship and I hope that we bring things to that relationship." So there you are we are America’s lickspittle: its official!

Cameron has previously said Britain was obsessed with Europe and the US. In particular, he criticised his predecessor Tony Blair's unquestioning loyalty to the US. He also said Britain must look at where its strategic interests lie, by possibly having more than one special relationship. Oh really? And how does that fit in with wee Willie Hague waiting to hear what Hilary Clinton thought of the Israeli hijacking of that aid ship before actually having an opinion? Maybe he should have employed that great Tory tactic, perfected by the last Tory PM, of hiding in a cupboard and avoiding TV cameras till he got the call. Oh and the BP phone call? Read on!

Cameron was accused of being insufficiently patriotic and has risked the wrath of many in his own party, recently for not challenging President Obama when he appeared to sanction anti-British sentiment in criticism of BP, as it struggled to get to grips with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Which it has now apparently got to the bottom of, so we can all go back to calling it a great “British” institution. Answers on a postcard for what you thought the “B” stood for in the interregnum!

The Tory blogosphere, press, blue rinse brigade and outraged of Royal Leamington Spa and Royal Tumbridge Wells were jumping up and down at that upstart Obama for referring to BP as “British”. But that was because it had done something wrong, as is always the case with these people it’s anything but British when it destroys the entire Gulf of Mexico. Despite the B historically standing for British. Doubtless if it had developed a cure for cancer or sent a man to Mars it would have been welcomed as British in spades by the same people.

The usual suspects had wanted a stern assertion of Britishness when Cameron got the call from Obama. After all we may have a special relationship (Ha!) but they are still foreigners and there is nothing the gutter press like better (it sells papers you see) than an anti-foreigner rant. Shame they didn’t get it from our spineless PM. And now he is telling Americans that we are their junior partners. And we should not expect anything back in return? And Tony Blair was unquestioningly loyal to the US and this isn’t? I feel the “H” word coming on as it does so often when referring to the Tories and their monkeys on the barrel organ of state.

"President Obama and I have a very good relationship, we get on very well," said Cameron. "Of course we will discuss BP. It is an important company, not just for Britain, but for America as well. It employs tens of thousands of people in the US, as it does in the UK."

Cameron spoke warmly of his own associations with the US. "When I think of America I think of all sorts of things. My grandfather going ashore at D-day with the Americans in support of the British and everyone working together. I also think of fantastic holidays I have had – from Florida to Texas (not the Gulf of Mexico side of course) to California. I think of American culture. It is an incredible relationship between our countries." I mean pass the sick bag or what. I’m assuming this gushing dross is intended for the American market. Certainly not cosying up to the Americans then?

SUICIDE ..... MURDER ..... SUICIDE? ONLY IN AMERICA!

As it is Easter holiday, I thought you might prefer something more lighthearted than the politics that dominates our lives at the moment and fortunately a mate sent me an email with this weird true story from Associated Press (reported by Kurt Westervelt) from the land of weird stories, America:

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:


On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus, and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly.


Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers, and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.


"Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "Someone who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide."


That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.


The room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife.


They were arguing vigorously, and he was threatening her with a shotgun!


The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus.


When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills subject "B" in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B." When confronted with the murder charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant, and both said that they thought the shotgun was not loaded.


The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, assuming the gun had been accidentally loaded.


The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.. Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now for the twist... Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder.

This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window.

The son, Ronald Opus, had actually murdered himself. So the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide. As "Letter From America" Danny is forever saying to me....Only in America!

............

Barack Obama leaves Netanyahu to work something out and goes for dinner....alone

Binyamin Netanyahu was humiliated when, while meeting with the President of the United States in the White House, he refused to back down on his plans to build more settlement in occupied territories of the West Bank.

The United Nations, of which Israel is a member and the United States, which is a generous funder of Israel, have both demanded that no new homes be built on what the UN declare to be Palestinian lands. Mr Netanyahu disagrees, and his government has given the go ahead for a mass of building works.

So Mr Obama, faced with the immovable, left the meeting with Netanyahu and went to dinner. He invited the prime minister to stay at the White House, consult with advisors and “let me know if there is anything new”, according to a US congressman.

The Times reports that one Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by mistrust. Another said that the prime minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”. (I’m not sure why the President of Equatorial Guinea would get that treatment from the President of the USA. In fact, as a president and head of state, he is entitled by protocol to a better reception than a mere prime minister.

That aside, Netanyahu and team were sent off to the Roosevelt Room and after the president had eaten, had another brief meeting with Mr Obama. The prime minister also extended his stay for emergency talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations. However, with no progress being made he left for Israel with no official statement from either side.

It is an embarrassment that he had to return home isolated and embarrassed. He may have found George Bush a walk over. The current president is a different kettle of fish.

I try not to take sides in the Palestine-Israel affair, simply because it is too complicated for me to understand. What I can see is that, under the UN agreed situation Israel has a right to exist, and within its own borders be safe, so the shelling from Gaza and the intermittent attacks by suicide bombers are intolerable. On the other hand the Palestinians are treated incredibly shabbily by Israel and under Netanyahu, the situation has worsened. Starved of food and water, and essentials, including medicines, life, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, has become equally intolerable. Both sides are at fault, and unless something gives, it will only get worse.

I doubt that Netanyahu is an easy man to deal with. He is a hard line right winger. I imagine that his intransigence was less to Barack Obama’s taste than it had been to George W Bush’s. ‘Know thine enemy’, is a good maxim. Mr Obama has already shown that he does not suffer fools gladly. Clearly Mr N, didn’t bother to learn that, and has paid for it with a red face.

Pictured: The Israeli Prime Minister and President Barack Obama


....................