Recently the Scottish left has been re-newing calls for Scottish independence – effectively the destruction of the centuries old United Kingdom.
Why? Surely the left is all about amalgamations and internationalism?
Not always. It depends on the existing reality. Tactics are determined by reality. Whatever is determined to be in the best long term interests of socialism, will become the new reality.
A big part of Leninism is what is termed the “National Question” – the use of national minority racial, ethnic or religious groups to split existing nation states, in order to weaken or destroy that state.
Divide and conquer.
Scottish nationalism is being used by the left to weaken and destroy the United Kingdom, with the long term aim of weakening the U.S. and what is left of the Western Alliance.
A further reason why the left should back independence is that the break-up of the United Kingdom would weaken capitalism and imperialism internationally. In Scotland, support for the union has always gone hand in hand with support for imperialism. Even today, the official title of the Tory Party in Scotland is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.
The old British Empire has long gone but Britain continues to play a key role on the world stage as the staunchest ally of the US in its drive to conquer the resources of the planet for multinational capitalism.
The departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom would mean more than just the loss of a big chunk of territory. Scotland is a vital cog in the western military machine, with vital nuclear submarine and air bases. More than 80 per cent of all European Union oil reserves are in Scottish waters, while Edinburgh is the fourth finance centre in Europe.
The tearing of the blue out of the Union Jack and the dismantling of the 300-year-old British state would also be a traumatic psychological blow for the forces of capitalism and conservatism in Britain, Europe and the USA. It would be almost as potent in its symbolism as the unravelling of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s.
It is no accident that big business and the conservative right in Scotland are fanatically pro-union. The break-up of the United Kingdom might not mean instant socialism, but it would mean a decisive shift in the balance of ideological and class forces.
This is no “pie in the sky” dream.
Pressure for independence is strong in Scotlland and growing daily – all fueled by the far left.
The Cameron led Conservative governent in London needs to address this issue seriously, before it is too late.
Protests against Spain’s economic crisis gained fresh momentum, as social networking fueled demonstrators to take to the streets of Puerto del Sol plaza with the local elections just days away. The nature of this peaceful protest, echoes the pro–democracy rallies that have revolutionized Egypt.
The rallies have been instigated by the major economic crisis that has affected Spanish citizens, with the working-class being most affected. Spain’s unemployment level has reached a new eurozone high of 21.3 percent in the first quarter of the year, with a record 4.9. million people out of work. The rate has been the highest reported since 1997. Joblessness during the January-March period jumped 1% from 20.3% at the end of 2010, which has added extra pressure to Spain as it tries to recover from nearly two years of recession. Jobs have been lost across the entire Spanish economy, with services, manufacturing, agriculture and construction all taking hits. The report, which was released by the government in late April, shows the number of households in which everyone is unemployed has rose sharply from 58,000 to 1.4 million.
The protest itself, began on Sunday. On the first evening, police removed protestors, but just last night allowed them to stay overnight. The atmosphere is quite festive, with the mood being peaceful but also unified in their belief for a more democratic society. Songs, games and debating has enhanced the spirit of the protest. The protestors, themselves, are demanding jobs, better living standards and a fairer system of democracy. The rally activists have also set up citizen’s committees to handle communications, food, cleaning, protest actions and legal matters. The committees show a strong resemblance to Cairo rallies which eventually forced President Hosni Mubarak from power in February.
As economic conditions worsen (which they almost certainly will), similar actions will likely spread to all Western countries.
A beautiful video of solidarity from the Egyptian revolutionary people to the youth of Spain, defying their failed political class to bring the Arab Spring to Europe. Now being shown to all the camps occupying Spain’s major city squares, as the movement spreads to cities in Italy and Portugal…
Everyone who reads this blog knows I’m a Christian. But unlike Camping and yesterday’s end of the world farce, I actually believe G-d, the Father, is the only one who knows the day and hour of his calling us home:
But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
To be fair, Camping was only predicting the Rapture yesterday (which obviously did not occur). He’s saving the end of the world for October. Between him and the 2012 enthusiasts, we should all, including the media, be surfing the Apocalypse these days.
Every fruit, flake and nut showed up to ridicule Camping’s foretold occurrence of the Rapture. Some sincere, good Christians also showed to say that Camping did not speak for all Christians and they were also there to console his followers when the event did not occur. But that didn’t stop the miscreants and the media from ridiculing Christians and faith as a whole. They better ‘pray’ they are right, because in the end, we all stand before Him in judgment.
Some would argue that at the end of the day, not only would there be false prophecies, but the wicked would rejoice in the streets just as they did in San Francisco Sodom and Gomorrah.
Everyone I know (and I know a lot of good Christians) are still here. So, it looks like Camping got it wrong. Gee, who saw that coming? Now, if Obama is reelected, I myself may be in the streets with a sign shouting that the end is nigh. Just sayin’…
In the meantime, the heathens that populate the media are running with a non-story of a kook who dares to think he knows the mind of G-d. There are so many crazy things going on in California that they could report on, but if it disses religion… You know, lede with all the crappy news that’s not fit to print. But blessed be Obama and Soros in the image of evil I guess. And finally, here is a truly tacky video to go with the tacky media…
Barack Obama basically stomped on the War Powers Act last week in a hissy fit proclaiming that it did not apply to his Libyan War/Conflict kinetic military action.
Showing clear disdain for the Act and America in general, Obama claimed that it was not applicable since the Libyan debacle was not actually a full-blown war. Under the War Powers Act, the President has 60 days to get authorization from Congress for any military involvement, and if he fails to get that authorization, he must end the involvement within 30 days. The 60-day authorization period expired on Friday the 20th. He penned a letter to Congress saying that the role of the US in the conflict was so limited that he does not need to seek congressional approval.
“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition’s efforts.”
A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”
“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”
Bovine excrement. From the beginning of Obama’s invoking the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Now he disowns the Act and in typical forked tongue fashion, he utilizes the War Powers Act and then dismisses it when it is no longer pertinent to his agenda. You know, sort of like the way he views our Constitution.
“In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,” James Madison wrote, “than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”
The Libyan debacle was never voted on because Obama knew it would never be passed. Libya was not a current threat to the US. I contend it was a dry run to see how Responsibility to Protect would play out if used in other actions. Such as, just being hypothetical here, Israel.
From the days of the Founders until recent decades, no significant U.S. military action took place apart from Congressional authorization. A look at the history of U.S. interventions abroad taken without Congressional approval shows most actions were taken in self-defense or as an immediate response to a foreign attack upon U.S. interests. The War Powers Resolution may be unconstitutional because it allows the president to initiate war for 60 days.
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (Emphasis added.)
Intervening in Libya’s civil war meets none of these criteria.
Obama is getting more and more brazen in his actions. He is ruling by executive orders, regulation and decree and not by the Constitution and the laws that the rest of us honor and follow. There are a number of lawmakers who are now demanding answers, but they will not be listened to by Obama. And in Obama’s usual two step mode, he may play legal games to get around the War Powers Act:
But the Obama administration, which cited the War Powers Resolution when it authorized the action in Libya, may be taking precautions.
Several reports have indicated the administration is weighing whether to pause the mission in Libya, only to restart it and presumably reset the 60-day timeline. Or the administration could stop using its drones for attacks.
Kucinich, though, said doing so would merely be a “legal loophole.” He suggested the administration would still be in violation of the law “as it was intended.”
John Yoo, a former Bush administration attorney who played a key role in drafting its interrogation policies, and Robert Delahunty, a fellow Bush Justice Department official, wrote in a Wall Street Journal column Friday that these tactics would not count as a “fair, honest reading of the War Powers Resolution.”
A great comment from Gateway Pundit from American Patriot puts this in light of what Abraham Lincoln said:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — ‘I see no probability of the British invading us;’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’
“The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.
Obama would be king evidently and use our military might at his pleasure. After the fashion of any good pretender to the throne, he takes council from his advisors, ‘the Congress,’ until that advice no longer suits his purpose. Whereupon he bids them silent, that he may pursue his “clearer” vision. Congress after all should hold its tongue if it can’t satisfy its master’s wishes. Waging war by decree, in Obama’s view, is his right as the most powerful ruler in the world. The Congress is just window dressing and the American people are just riffraff who don’t know what is best for them. Better to leave that to the ruling elite who are wiser and more capable to decide who lives and who dies and what borders are appropriate.