Understanding the Caliphate

Can IS only be beaten into submission by Boots on Ground

There seems to be a lot which is difficult to understand, about the problems this so-called IS Caliphate seeks to impose on its followers. If indeed what is published in the papers is a true reflection. It's difficult to imagine why any right thinking person would want to belong.  though it appears from what I've read that once you sign up after presumably being radicalised, The only way out is in a Bodybag. So knowing that why would you do it?

  I'm not sure if they lure men to sign up in anticipation of co-habiting with the 72 virgins. But if this is true and it happens.  I think the pace of it would finish you off in no time at all, unless at the same time you are vested with exceptional powers. So what exactly would be the point of this?

  Is there anyone out there who can explain exactly what it is all about in words of one syllable. I'd like to try to understand what motivates the people behind it. So is it just one person or is there a committee of some description? I'm unsure if they wish you to believe it is Allah Akbar.

  Now in respect of what President Obama is trying to do, in harness with Dave, assuming the article I defer to is accurate and I've no reason to dispute this. They are using IS opponents to supply the manpower, fixing them up with  whatever they need in the way of arms and supplies and lending them an Air Force, which their opponents do not have. So if every conflict of modern times is predicated to succeed, on the back of air-power. They will create a formidable response  to roll back the frontiers of something which is extremely difficult to understand, in this modern world.

  Seems to me like we're intent on going back to the days of our forefathers 11/13 Century, when Crusades were in vogue. The Caliph tossed a cushion in the air and without moving his Scimitar allowed the cushion to fall by its own weight onto the blade where it fell to the ground in 2 separate pieces.  Am I right or wrong?  Please advise.

Watch this space, I'll be back.

Tom

The Aftermath for Scots and the EU

The Horse-Trading begins and how it might affect our EU MEPS

There can be no doubt about it the Anglo-Saxon English Parliament gave Federalism to the World and now it’s payback time. But they ain’t seen nothing yet and they ain’t going to like it. These MPs in their Ivory Towers in the respective parliaments who think they are ‘God Almighty’. They will now be called to account for disparities in our UK Federal Superstate, run by the British Parliamentary system they have allowed to develop.

Mainly it concerns the bloc vote of  Labour MPs that emanate from North of the Border, distorting the balance of probabilities both in the Mother of all Parliaments and the electoral system that governs us. So what’s to be done about it?  For years the cry from Europe has been for subsidiarity. So now  we now have individual parliaments i.e. Stormont, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament,  subsidiarity should reign supreme, where matters come to the vote that concern these individual nation parliaments. This has to happen because other than England, none of these separate and distinct cultures, have the economic might to exist alone without Social Transfers. i.e. The distribution of funds from the Treasury in Whitehall.

  

So the Office of Budgetary Responsibility  (OBR) should be given a clear mandate in respect of equality and fairness and a liability to oversee the distribution, with appropriate checks and balances. Where Westminster can rule on where and how any individual parliament, may think it is being discriminated against. It should therefore be relatively easy for all these disparate interests to be accommodated, in this modern world of the 21^st century - going forward. So we can all live in peace and harmony, in these Sceptred Isles - all 6,269 of them

The main problem for the party now predominate in Scotland however, has been the eternal cry that it is our oil. So continual whingeing in this respect, has conferred on Scots the mantle of (eternal whingeing Jocks). Though in fairness it should be said this mantle is to a great extent assisted by the propensity for outfits that prepare TV adverts, to use the Scottish accent,  to indicate ways that various products can conserve your hard-earned brass.

 This has created a misnomer and results in Scots taking umbrage at aspersions of whingeing, to the extent that their sensibilities espouse.personal insults. So its time for them to grow-up and taste the coffee, now they have suffered an enormous setback to their psyche, from which they might never recover.

Nuf sed! But I’ll be back.

Tom Stack the Author.

Can Mr Farage & UKIP ever be anything more than a Carnival Act

By tomtom

A one man Band on a One Trick Pony

 

Maybe Mr Farage and the UKIP he ramrods, will top the EU poll come May 22^nd. But can he lead a real political party of the people to challenge the status quo? The outfit certainly appears to getting up a head of steam, but whether this can translate into a real political party, remains to be seen. The first priority is to attract the funding necessary to be a real threat, if you aspire to be taken seriously. So it could be Mr Farage has upset a few too many along the way, for this to happen on the necessary scale, for he is on the basis of available evidence – a rather vacuous entity.

But he has a practised script, and a  way of telling people what they think they want to hear, of that there can be no question. Nor is there any doubt that emotions have run high along the way and maybe his vision of the future has never been clearly established to the extent it needs to be, if he is to attract the talent to make things happen. In addition there appears to have been a lot of jiggery-pokey going-on, that leaves many disgruntled former associates in his wake.

Primarily questions have arisen in respect of setting up Call Centres and what has happened to the funds that were generated. It is well known that chartered accountants set-on along the way as party treasurers were soon dumped if they asked questions about the accounting aspect of funds raised in these Call Centres. Indeed on one occasion a Call Centre was closed down within a few weeks of opening, in response to queries about their legality – by a Party Treasurer.

There are also questions in respect of the way the Party constitution was rigged in respect of Mr Farage’s bid for the leadership and the fact that the only way he could be sure of achieving this was to be elected to the post by a minority of the members. So how did he go about creating this situation, you may well ask?

It was achieved by changing the voting system for party leader from Single Transferable Vote to First Past the Post. The system where the best man for the job was selected by whittling the contenders down to two candidates was ditched for a system where Mr Farage knew the vote against him would be split and allow him to slip in on the blindside. This was exactly what happened and for UKIP per-se an opportunity was lost.

Mr Farage had built his reputation for leadership on the back of speeches he made at respective Party Conferences around the turn of the century. There can be little doubt of his ability to tell the unwashed masses what they want to hear. It is based on little more than a repetitive rhetoric, about Brussels/Strasbourg interference in domestic affairs, as they prepare the legislative jungle necessary for the administration of a Federal Superstate.

But knocking this aspect in a lot of ways is a hollowed-out perspective that appeals in general to the masses as they see matters incorporated into English Common Law that have no place in the way we Anglo-Saxons go about out daily business. Nevertheless this pernicious interference has brought salutary warnings down the ages from profound and esteemed Statesmen from Lord Palmerston to modern day politicians of repute who have predicted what had to happen to our national identity on the journey to a Federal Superstate.

This is what they had to say:-

Lord Palmerston:- 1784 -1865 who said:-  “Only three men in Europe understand the Schleswig Holstein question, (aka -  West Lothian question) and of these,  Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s Consort is dead, a Danish Statesman unnamed is in an asylum ‘and I myself”‘ confessed Lord Palmerston, “have forgotten.”

Jean Monnet:- 1888 – 1979 who said:-  “All Europe’s nations should be guided towards a super-state, without people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Mr Peter Thorneycroft MP:- 1909 – 1994 who said:- “No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices an adequate European Plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously, into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, ‘not asked,” he insisted, “for it involves changes, which they may not at first be capable of recognising the advantages of - themselves.”

 Mr Tom Stack the Author 1936 – Present  who said :- After hours of spurious argument in Parliament, as to why a referendum was not to be and a resounding vote rejecting the right of the people to be heard; by 483 to 111. It now befalls me to point out that the politicians are even more completely out of step with democracy, than the public at large could ever have imagined.

With a three party whip ranged against the motion, the outcome was always going to be what the politicians had decided. It is quite clear they have little regard for what the people have to say on the matter of EU interference in our internal affairs.

Can we really afford to wait for them to re-negotiate the terms of our involvement?   Can we really believe there will be a better time to listen to what the people wish to say on the matter as prescribed by most who spoke against the motion before the house? At the rate of £25mn per day till they decide it is impossible to continue or the whole ridiculous charade implodes.

Can we really believe that those who voted to deny the people the opportunity to express their angst understood the depth of feeling at large in the general population? Or indeed ever understood themselves, what they had been forced into imposing, as they wriggled and squirmed trying to explain, things they never fully understood themselves, in respect of the actual proposition before them.

Yes we realise that the politicians can and do have one eye on their own position in respect of advancement through the party ranks, to office of one kind or another. But to deny the prospect of expression to the public by refusing to grant a referendum on the EU was both mean spirited and short-sighted.

No doubt candidates at the next general election whenever it comes will use this as an opportunity to challenge opponents on their record of anti-democracy voting on the back of the ePetition legislation. And to determine if there was ever any purpose in introducing it, other than to use it put the electorate in their place, as voting fodder with no real voice.

Watch this space I’ll be back!

Tom.