Saturday, 22 January 2011

You Must Be A BNP Sympathiser!

Why is that exactly? Because I believe in strict limits on immigration? Does the fact that you (of the lefty liberal persuasion who would make such a statement) believe in some form of welfare state that you must automatically be sympathetic to the most extreme manifestations of that policy namely the Communist Party of Britain? I doubt it, so don't make the same fatuous leap with someone such as myself.

There are many, many, many reasons not to vote or support the BNP whatever one's feelings on immigration, but before I cover those I should point out that the idea that the BNP is uniquely extreme on the issue of immigration and a party such as the Labour party is not is completely untrue. Members of the Labour party at this time have the gall to make statements about the Conservatives, relating to their NHS policy for instance, saying that they do not have a mandate for change as they did not put such reforms in there manifesto. Well, the Labour party came into power in 1997 and at no point did it make it clear that it would offer a virtually zero tolerance policy on asylum and virtually open borders on the issue of immigration. What's more the party made an active effort to lie, deceive and fiddle the numbers to the public on all matters relating to immigration. Labour trenched the nation in identity politics, dividing individuals into ethnic blocs and then shamelessly electioneered and offered all kinds of benefits to minority communities while allowing those numbers to swell so that they would be voted in. Deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people they were supposed to be representing while literally importing voters and targeting their policies to favour them over the indigenous Britons is essentially exactly what the BNP would do if in power only in reverse. On top of this, the party has a terrible record on foreign prisoners and keeping proper tabs on illegal immigrants. New Labour's policy on immigration was borderline treasonous and an absolute disgrace. Further, having been lumped into the ethnic bloc 'white' next to the newly created in one's community of 'black', 'Muslim' and all the rest that may have appeared, there is no moral difference as a consequence of having been discriminated against, of a white individual voting for a BNP candidate in order to receive a return of some form of attention and notice by the government that is supposed to represent them, next to a minority voter voting for a minority Labour candidate because he or she thinks that his or her ethnic bloc will benefit most from that vote as the Labour party encourages minorities to do to this day. If we are supposed to 'understand' and 'appreciate' the grievances that might lead a young Muslim to lean towards terrorism then an area that has been overtaken by foreign migrants against the locals will who are then discriminated against and silenced for having an opinion, certainly have just as understandable a grievance.

Any other time in history where a government has so actively worked against the population it is supposed to represent in regards to immigration and actively discriminated against this population with legislation in the workplace forcing positive discrimination as well as community programmes under the title of 'diversity' where British tax-payers money goes entirely towards newly created immigrant communities there would have been widespread riots and even violence and hostility towards these newcomers. Fortunately that has not been the case and despite the fact that in areas like Bradford, Birmingham and large parts of London that have been irreversibly changed beyond recognition there has still not been any widespread violence against minority communities. I hope therefore that there is still time for the Conservative party to be reformed and turned truly conservative again, for a halt on immigration and the notion of British identity and the British nation-state to return.

A vote for the BNP on the other hand is a vote for so much more than a halt to immigration. The BNP despite what they claim distinguish individuals on racial and not ethnic lines. There are plenty of black and asian individuals who have assimilated into the British nation that in my opinion represent Britain today far more than members of a fascist party ever could who the BNP would attempt to remove or discriminate against. On that point of fascism, while the BNP are technically attempting to gain power through democratic means (as the Nazi party once did), I have little doubt that considering the party's history and the people that it is comprised of that they would have very little regard for law and order. This is to further emphasise that they have many other intolerable views, are a divided and unprofessional gang, with a huge proportion of ex-convicts and thugs that have no place in parliament. A vote for the BNP is to say that the non-white population of Britain is at all out war with the white population and all need to be forcibly removed from the country, and as strongly as I feel about the problems of multiculturalism and especially mass immigration, we are nowhere near that situation at the present and as so far few people are already voting for the party in proportional times, the effort required to increase that vote would be far better spent in converting people of the other parties to a more moderate, sensible and non-racist line on immigration and other issues. There is no excuse for voting for the BNP in 2011. Then again while we're on that point, there is no excuse for voting for Labour in 2011 either.

Thursday, 20 January 2011

Was Iraq Illegal? Who Cares

Of all the criticisms of the war in Iraq, surely the most irrelevant happens to be the one that is squawked the most often from the anti-war brigade; the legality of the war. Firstly, I'm not going to give an opinion on whether the war was illegal or not because it's not the point of this post. I would say however, that no matter how often some clueless skinny-jeaned idiot quotes an international lawyer he found by googling on the internet that says that the war was illegal or however articulately members of the public who oppose the war phrase the same point of view, it will not change the fact that there were and are plenty of lawyers who believed that the opposite was true and screaming the contrary as loud as possible will not change the fact that it remains disputed and unresolved.

Whenever people make this criticism of the war it is always assumed that the international community is otherwise an upstanding 'law-abiding', multilateral institution that has been potentially damaged by such reckless unilateralism. What nonsense. No other nation on earth and especially not France or Germany, the former of which quite explicitly said so at the time of the invasion would or has conceded its sovereignty in making foreign policy decisions, if they believe the benefits outweigh the costs. One of the ironies of the 'War for Oil' myth is that it was America, that was willing to destabilise the region and spend billions of dollars on reconstruction while not taking any of Iraq's oil, that acted disproportionately in the favour of another nation in disregard of its oil requirements, and it was France in particular that was quite happy with the status quo of a murderous dictator as long as it could keep its oil contracts. The accepted narrative that exists today of course, is of a wiser and far more benign France that was trying to uphold moral values and an oil-stealing America that was devoid of principle.


Regardless of all the very good reasons for why we shouldn't have gone to war, or should have delayed it and attempted a UN negotiation for longer, or gone about it very differently, if we or America as sovereign nations believed that it was the right thing to do and was important enough, then it is utterly irrelevant whether it was 'illegal' in the UN's eyes or not as the only reason in an international community to cede some of your sovereignty is for reciprocity which is not given under the current system. The United States whatever one thinks of the merit of its decision, behaved as any other nation powerful enough has when it came to the opinions of other nations in the UN, and on that point at least, they were completely in the right.

On Warsi

So you refuse to listen to the population you are supposed to represent by packing nearly 3 million Muslims into an already overcrowded United Kingdom, predominantly into England, encourage them not to integrate and 'celebrate' their culture at tax-payers expense, lie about the numbers coming in, pour tax-payers money into those communities so that self-represented leaders of this group may waste it pretending to tackle extremism, do not arrest members of those communities that are breaking the law by inciting racial and religious hatred the same year as 7/7, allow hate preachers from all around the world to radicalise Muslims at Britain's universities giving Britain the dubious reputation for exporting terrorism and then you wonder why it appears that this community is not getting on with the rest of the population?

When the cretin known as Nick Griffin appeared on BBC Question Time last year there were many interesting things to take from it but probably the most important thing that went unnoticed was a comment from Sayeeda Warsi. As the representative from the supposedly Conservative Party, there was a point when she quite pedantically said to the audience something along the lines of 'if you are concerned about the rate of change in your communities then come and speak to one of the three major parties' representatives'. There are a million reasons why this was so relevant. First of all she openly admitted that mass immigration was changing the communities it was directly affecting, as opposed to usually completely skipping over this issue and treating any affects of immigration as either unnoticeable or benign.  Second, was the fact that she is supposed to be a conservative. Conservative means to conserve, not to openly admit that you are freely engaging in the rapid transformation of our communities by massive immigration. Thirdly, it was the tacit recognition that perhaps people didn't want their communities to be changed and to start representing the areas of the third world where the migrants mostly originate from, but instead of saying that the party might perhaps represent those views she patronisingly (which may not have come across in my paraphrasing) told viewers that the party was not going to listen to those views, but like naughty children at school they could go and see one of the representatives of the three main parties who could pedantically tell them why their concerns were irrelevant and unimportant.

Bearing all this in mind, considering how minorities are treated in every other area of the world (not to mention in most Muslim countries) it is quite staggering that the level of bigotry within society is not considerably higher than it already is towards the Muslim population. More to the point, the 'extremism' within the Muslim community is far disproportionately greater to that of the non-Muslim community in Britain. After 60 years of mass immigration taken completely against the will of the British people, the BNP have still not won a single MP, but from a demographic of almost entirely newly arrived Muslim migrants the RESPECT party was voted in which if it were to ever gain power is equally as extreme and dangerous as the BNP.

It was especially disappointing to hear Mrs Warsi use the term 'Islamophobic' as lazily as she did. 'Islamophobia' is a nonsense term that has come to be abused by some of the most extreme and reactionary elements of the Muslim community. It could as I see it, refer to one of two things. Firstly, it could refer to a dislike of Muslims largely due to their skin colour which is unquestionably objectionable and unacceptable.  It could on the other hand also refer to a dislike of the religion. Islamophobia dishonestly conflates these two entirely separate issues one perfectly legitimate, one utterly unacceptable. Any hostility which is directed at Muslims personally should be called racism when it is motivated by such and any criticism of a particular Muslims behaviour or the views of an organisation that is Islamic or more wider criticism of a religion, should be called what it is; perfectly legitimate and necessary criticism. In Britain today every political party, as Warsi herself demonstrates is at a pains to present a token Muslim and appear 'inclusive'. Millions of tax-payers money is poured into Muslim communities and organisations that largely do no good for a problem that no other community suffers from. Every time the issue of terrorism is brought up they are instantly disassociated from the wider Muslim community. You will not find a more politically correct or fearful society of criticising Muslims or any other minorities, and under no circumstances would a non-Muslim get away with what many Muslim preachers say about Homosexuals, Jews and Women in many mosques and Universities around the country. The so-called table talk that Warsi describes as 'Islamophobic' is not for the most part an irrational fear (which is the definition of a phobia) but a perfectly legitimate set of opinions about the behaviour or large numbers (if not proportions) of Muslims, and particularly the problems of Muslim organisations. To conflate that criticism as racist or in some way prejudiced is dishonest and actually makes things harder for moderate Muslims. Firstly because it irritates the non-Muslim population to no end (including the other minority members of society) that the representatives from the moderate population continually attempt to censor and make it difficult to criticise the extremists of their community and hence make them part of the problem. Worse than this however is the continuous censorship of mainstream and moderate views leaves people with only one avenue left to a party that is not governed by normal standards of decency.

To address some of the content of a lot of what Warsi has said, she referred to the "patronising" way that faith is often dealt with in the media, implying that you must have a respect and reverence for any religion even if you don't adhere to it or you will be called a bigot. She even attacks those who draw a distinction between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims. This is stupid on so many levels. Firstly there are extremists in Islam and for the most part there are moderates. If making this distinction so that people who hear the criticism understand that most Muslims are not part of the problem, means that the Muslim community is viewed with suspicion then that is the fault of the extremists themselves not those who are attempting to deal with the problem they pose, especially when they make an extra effort to curtail the criticism by emphasising its proportionality. She also said that people may have a view of a woman in a "burka" as oppressed. Again, who does she think she is telling non-Muslims what they must think about aspects of the Muslim community. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold, that a burka may be not only unsightly and unnecessary but even oppressive as many Muslims happen to think so as well. Wider members of the community do not attempt to censor and silence the opinions of the Conservative elements of the Muslim community who criticise drunkenness and immodesty amongst our youth or problems with our foreign policy with charges of bigotry and racism and that she would be a two-way courtesy.

As far as I can see critics of Islam as a religion and the extremist organisations that have sprouted out of it are routinely labelled as bigots and racists in the media, because people do not or cannot make the distinction between legitimate critics of Islam and racists. While people like Douglas Murray, make every effort possible to distinguish between the majority of moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims, it appears that Warsi is incapable of making that same distinction when comes to critics of Islam. How disappointing.

Only Christians Are My Brothers?

Something I've always found fairly irritating about a nation I otherwise love, is the attempt by Americans to reconcile their nationalism with their religion. The idiot Robert Bentley, newly made governor of Alabama made a statement recently saying that if you had not accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour then you were not a 'brother' or 'sister' of his. In a fantastically poorly worded and ill thought out speech, the governor made it clear in no uncertain terms that a shared ethnicity or nationality with someone played a very second fiddle to one's religion. If it were true that it was more important to Conservative Americans what religion someone was rather than their ethnicity, then surely they should be welcoming with open arms the mass immigration of Hispanics from Mexico into their country who for the most part are very religious, anti-gay and anti-abortion.

Clearly most of them do not believe that, and should not feel obliged to but it would be nice to see some honesty and consistency on the issue of religion for once. Then again, who am I kidding.


Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Atheist Islamophobia

It is Ok to bash their beliefs though. All of them.
I've mentioned on this blog before how irritating I find it, that I very often hear that I am part of a decadent, warmongering, amoral and all the rest of it society from a community that expects one-way tolerance and will label anyone prejudiced, bigoted, racist and all the rest of it if that criticism is returned. Well I'm an atheist which means that I do not believe in Islam. Actually that hasn't made the point clearly enough, I do not simply 'not believe' in Islam I think that Islam is false. Because I do not believe in Islam I think that teaching children that Allah is God and all the rest of it is a lie. Because I do not believe in Islam I believe that frightening children and others with stories of eternal torture is a form of cruelty. Because I do not believe in Islam I believe that even the most moderate, nice sounding, America loving, peace loving, Islamist condemning moderate who believes that Islam is a religion is peace, is still believing in a nonsensical falsehood that has as much place in 21st Century Britain as the same medieval barbarism that we spent so much time and so much blood removing in the form of Christianity. Because I do not believe in Islam I believe that dividing people up by the God they worship and uncritically supporting any other members of that religion wherever they may be instead of investing in a secular local community and nation is a sectarian, bad thing to do that does not improve British life at all. Because I do not believe in Islam I do not respect anyone that believes in a religion based around a paedophile prophet, I may respect their right to an opinion but not the opinion itself. Because I do not believe in Islam I do not believe that Muslim sensibilities in any form should be prioritised by the rest of the non-Muslim populations of Europe, especially on the issue of hard fought rights of freedom of speech. Because I do not believe in Islam I do not think that any contribution from a religion that is in my opinion entirely based on falsehood can contribute anything of any worth to a secular society, where the influence of religion should be curtailed not promoted. Because I do not believe in Islam irrespective of whether I respect someone's right to their opinion I am not morally obliged to be neutral about something that is false and should be as entitled to say that I dislike aspects of Islamic garb or rhetoric as much as Muslims have the right to say they dislike the West's foreign policy. Because I do not believe in Islam I am perfectly entitled to legitimately fear or express concern about policies originating from views that I do not agree with, resulting in effects that I possibly don't like, especially when the majority of those views have originated from societies with incredibly different cultures and standards to my own. Because I do not believe in Islam I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion on a religion as any Muslim is entitled to express their opinion on my belief, with neither of us legally obliged to concern about causing offence. I am an adult and can handle hearing views I disagree with and I expect that of anyone regardless of which religion they come from.

I do not call for any Muslim who calls me an infidel, refers to me 'cattle' while whinging about prejudice against members of his religion (see Mehdi Hasan), calls me decadent, calls me a liar, deceiver, denier, hell-bound and all the rest of it, by any names, nor do I call for the law to limit their rights to free speech. But I am an atheist. I am a secularist. And I will be frank in an adult society about my differences of opinion.

Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not, not even a majority, not even more than around 2% of Muslims in Britain are terrorists or supporters of terrorism. But, do all Muslims, irrespective of their political views bring with them third-world, out of date, irrational, desert superstition? Yes, I'm an atheist so of course I believe that. It's about time the rest of the secular-atheists started acknowledging their true views on Islam as well.

A community that is based on lies, censorship and deceit, that cannot talk openly and honestly about the differences within it is not a community at all.

Spending Everyday With Glenn Beck

Despite my fluctuating political views over my University years, one thing never changed. Demagogues that appear on their own television shows that treat complicated political issues from whichever side of the political equation as if they could be usefully summarised into 5 minute segments while 'destroying' or 'owning' the 'Conservative nutjobs' or 'Far Left Radicals' are not worth even a seconds notice. It is a very strong indicator if someone that takes an interest in American politics pauses when being asked if they prefer Keith Olbermann to Bill O'Reilly when the answer should be an unhesitant; neither.

A brilliant segment by Jon Stewart a few months back poked fun at Glenn Beck in a way that no-one yet has, but it wasn't by portraying an exaggerated caricature of Beck or attacking a straw man, it was by literally repeating his puerile views in plain language. If anyone from the European or American continents that consider themselves to be a 'Progressive' was told that in order to believe in a safety net for society's most vulnerable, automatically meant that they believed in a government take-over of all facets of American life and the building of eugenics centres, I would full support their disbelief and irritation at such a suggestion.

If you are of a progressive persuasion think how bemusing it is to watch this man make his absurd leaps from minor liberal policy to extremist Nazi/ Soviet dicatorship and imagine what it would be like if you had to put up with that every single day from everyday members of society. Welcome to being a conservative in European circles. If it is not fair for me to instantly associate you with the most extreme members of history with views that vaguely correlate to yours, then why is it acceptable to instantly call people like Douglas Murray a Nazi, because he believes in a reduced immigration policy? We have gone well beyond the point of intelligent or sensible discussion on issues like immigration years ago, whereby people of the left despite being so convinced that Conservative views on immigration are incorrect, are seemingly petrified of confronting those debates at face-value and instead attribute hyperbolic labels like 'racist' to silence rather than engage in sensible discussion. Thilo Sarrazin is the latest victim of this censorship and cowardice in Germany.

Most people in Britain will have seen the latest example of this on last Thursday's edition of Question Time where the panellists absolutely refused to address the issue of reverse-racism in Pakistani communities that was leading young Muslim men to target white girls from ages as young as 12 for rape. What most people don't seem to realise is that on issues like the Pakistani rape case, while it may be perfectly reasonable to suggest that if we are not careful with our discourse then it is possible that we can elevate support for the extremists in our society. There is however, another danger. Parties like the BNP receive support because people feel marginalised by the mainstream parties who they feel do not represent them. If you refuse to discuss issues like this and attack the people who try and at least mention the problem let alone attempt to deal with it, then it sounds out a clear message that one must be either silent on these issues or resort to the extreme parties. In other words there is just as much danger to silencing the problem as there is to exaggerating the problem. The BNP may have been coming from the totally wrong angle when it made the campaigns saying "Our Children Are Not Halal Meat", but that's not the point. The tragedy is they were right to address these problems, and criminally they were the only ones doing so.

Sunday, 16 January 2011

Warmongering Peaceniks

Isn't it strange that 'warmongering neocon cunts' like myself that support the American troops in Iraq are accused of continuing the war and yet those who support the 'resistance' that mostly blow up civilians and non-combatants don't see the irony in calling themselves the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Let's be clear on one thing, the Stop the War Coalition and those associated with it were not anti-war, they were pro-war only they were pro-war for the other side.

My irritation/ amusement at the anti-war bunch was recently revived when I came across a card-carry 'Anti-War' pillock on Youtube with a channel that's called 'adycousins'. Ignoring the irony for a second of calling yourself anti-capitalist and yet using the multi-billion pound profit making company Youtube to spread that message I was particularly amused by this in his description bar:



Isn't it amusing that he describes himself as against war, against racism and against sexism before describing himself as 'Pro-resistance reporting'. Essentially saying that he is against war, against racism and against sexism but he supports the pro-war, racist, gay killing, women oppressing, Islamist armies that are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. 


However one looks at it, the Iraq War was a total disaster. A large amount of the rhetoric that was sold before the war turned out to be false. The invasion was handled in a manner that meant that there was little to no post-invasion plan, not enough troops were put on the ground, the dismantling of the Iraqi army was one of many blunders that led to the insurgency and it appears that many of the anti-war arguments; namely about opening a lid on a kettle of civil war that could not be controlled, turned out to be true. The odd thing is though, that a large amount of the opposition to the war that was based on a sober and sensible analysis of the Sunni-Shi'ite conflict that would result which we should not entangle ourselves in has morphed into an active support of those reactionary elements against the American led forces. I don't have a problem with someone saying it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq and it's probably a stupid idea to stay there, but I can't understand the leap in logic in thinking that it was a bad idea to get involved in Islamist politics, and then saying that we should support the Islamists fighting against the Americans who no matter how ill-advisedly, are fighting and spending billions of dollars to bring about a democracy.

One is also led to wonder if the SWP's dream of an annihilated Israel and occupation by Hamas would lead to an instant switch in loyalty. Having supported Hamas for so long, would the SWP suddenly find themselves in opposition to the party that kills its fellow co-religionists, murders gays, tortures women and turned its attention to its genocidal plan of murdering all Jews around the world, even those outside of Israel?

On the final point, 'Anti-capitalism'? As a neocon I often argue with classical liberals who believe in a privatised health service and don't see the threat posed by unregulated multi-national corporations, so I am by no means sycophantically endowed to the free-market, but to describe oneself as Anti-capitalist in the 21st Century. Really? Isn't it about time we grew up?

Friday, 14 January 2011

Blood Libels

Jesus Christ will people on the right please stop defending and making excuses for Sarah Palin. If this woman was politically and historically literate enough to legitimately run for the Presidency of the United States then she would not require a chorus of supporters to jump out and pre-emptively respond to criticisms from the 'liberal elites' nearly every time she opens her mouth. Those criticisms namely being that she is not qualified, has provided a swathe of evidence to re-affirm this view that can only possibly be sidelined by shameless partisanship over a true loyalty to one's country. If someone really cared about their country they would want the best people in the best position, and their loyalty would be to their country and not any political party first. Sarah Palin has proved that most Republican supporters in America clearly value their title as 'Conservatives' or members of the 'right' as more important than their nationality as Americans.

The quote from the great Winston Churchill to the right is a very useful one in conversations like this. Winston Churchill was not actually saying that every one of his fellow countrymen were stupid and deserving of contempt and vitriol, merely that a sincere grasp on political issues necessitated a hierarchy as in all other professions that is generally assumed to not exist amongst average voters where 'everyone's opinion is equal'. It is not that Sarah Palin is stupid per se, it is simply that at every single opportunity she has behaved exactly as one would expect a run of the mill average voter to behave when put under the scrutiny reserved for those that are expected to lead and rise to the top of that hierarchy. Whether it be an inability to name a newspaper that she reads, an inability to demonstrate even a superficial understanding of economics, a profound ignorance of urgent matters of foreign policy, difficulty in holding her own against an experienced and knowledgeable opponent, Sarah Palin is certainly not a bad person, but she knows as well as anyone that when Mccain chose her as his Vice-Presidential selection it was totally out of the blue and not a meritocratic selection.

'You bloody liberal, you probably listen to Keith Olbermann and worship an Obama poster in your room!' What can I say here? I am pro-life, supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, an ardent Zionist, would be a Republican if I moved to America with little hesitation, care more about illegal immigration into America, than many Americans themselves seem to, defended George W Bush in an incredibly hostile and anti-American environment (Europe), and to top it all off, have had an American flag (with no Union Jack next to it) hung up in my room since I was 18. I do not like Barack Obama. I cannot understand why it is seemingly taboo or extreme to refer to him as a socialist, as if it is the post-Second World War European sense of the term socialist that is implied, then it is beyond question that he is indeed a socialist.

The attempts to defend Palin have been even more embarrassing than the offences that have produced the need for such defence in some cases. Let's take the example of the writing on the hand incident. Sarah appeared to write:  - Energy - Budget (Cut?) - Tax - Lift American Spirits. What was the great response from the American right, shame and embarrassment? No it was the meek and pathetic, 'well Obama uses teleprompters'. And this may have been a reasonable response had Sarah, written down some complicated statistics related to a specific point of discussion in energy dependency for instance, but she didn't do that, apparently some of the most basic and simple components of the American conservative tradition i.e. of cutting the budget, lowering taxes and lifting the American spirit could not be remembered by Sarah on her own, that even these the most basic of talking points could not be reliably produced by someone in an interview who could feasibly one day have the nuclear codes. Yes, for a long time Presidents have used teleprompters to give off long speeches authored by a speechwriter, there is nothing new about that, but a so-called Republican Presidential nominee that needs to remind herself that American conservatives support tax cuts by writing it on her hand, that is very new and very frightening.

What's even worse is the sheer volume of inane statements, shoddy interviews and public misdemeanours have forced even her ardent critics to sheepishly concede some of the ground by moving the goal posts and claiming that she is a woman of the 'people' and represents a grass roots answer to the 'elite' President Obama. Well I don't know about Americans, but I want my leaders to be elite. When I go for a surgery I want the most qualified people for the job who are cutting me open. When I get in a plane I want people that are qualified who are flying me thousands of feet above the air. When it comes to the most important job in the world, where millions of lives, foreign and domestic will be affected by the decisions of the person in power I want the most qualified person for the job, and if it is the case that there is a President in power that does not represent the majority of the American people, who appears aloof and out of touch, the solution is not to elevate some clueless cretin who will turn the country into a genuine laughing stock, but to find someone that represents the people, who is also well informed, properly qualified with the necessary experience, who reads a newspaper every now and then, and doesn't need a note on his or her hand to remind themselves that the Republican party likes to keep taxes low.