Michael Scheuer says 50 anti-Trump Republicans should be "retired" and "ignored"

Republican security experts rail against Trump in open letter

Open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts warning that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history

Incoherent blather from General Hayden from 24th minute.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07mvxwr

From 28th minute

Michael Scheuer:

General Hayden presided over the shredding of the Fourth Amendment when Obama and Bush spied over every American with their electronic equipment. 

On the question of the letter, I think Mr Trump should be delighted. Two days from now is twenty years since Osama Bin Laden declared war on us, and everything we have tried to do has been negative. All of the young men and women who have lost lives and limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan did it for nothing. There's no freedom there, there's no liberty there and in the course of these unnecessary wars there is less liberty at home.

Martha Kearney:

But you know how important the role of the President is as Commander in Chief and these are fifty senior Republicans and many of them hold very high positions in different administrations and they say he is going to be the most reckless President in American history and has many dangerous qualities. 

Michael Scheuer:

More reckless than Obama who just paid $400,000,000 to ransom four Americans? His State Department and your Foreign Ministries in Europe connived with the Ukrainian opposition to bring down a pro-Russian government and re-started the Cold War. What could be more reckless than that?

Martha Kearney:

Well, I think the argument goes to temperament, doesn't it? You can have policy differences and people may well disagree with the direction that President Obama has taken but what these Republicans are saying crosses the political divide - is that his temperament makes him unsuitable for the job?

Michael Scheuer:

I would prefer him not to be so vocal at times, but I also like someone who says what they think and what he says is that America should come first. As we speak, I'm looking at pictures of British Special Forces operating in Syria. We were out of the Iraq-Syria mess and now we are back into it. What kind of governments do we have? We are letting in unvetted Syrians and I read in your press this morning that you're going to give political asylum to Muslim Brotherhood people from Egypt. I think the old gang which is represented by the list we are speaking of deserves to be retired and deserves to be ignored.

Martha Kearney:

But interestingly you say you wish he wouldn't be quite so vocal - and you may be right about that - and the way we judge him by is the kind of thing he's saying on the campaign trail and that is giving some people the impression that he is reckless such as the people who signed the Republican letter.

Michael Scheuer:

I can't speak for your media but I don't mind what he says except for the fact that the media here is in a tank this morning for Hillary Clinton. You played a clip from ABC in America and of course their main person George Stephanopoulos is owned by the Clintons and as a journalist gives money to the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton Organisations ...

Martha Kearney:

Well, that might be the case but it's not the case with the people who signed this letter, is it?

Michael Scheuer:

Oh, the people who signed the letter! If you go down the list, they're the ones who want America to be intervening everywhere around the world. They're the New World Order people, they're the ones who brought us all these unnecessary wars. If you go down the list, there is also at least thirty people who prize the interests of Israel more than the interests of the United States, and that's the real rub for a lot of them, that's the real rub for the Republicans, that America is no longer going to get involved fighting Israel's wars. 

Martha Kearney:

Dr Michael Scheuer, many thanks for joining us.

http://non-intervention.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer 

Why did YouTube remove the second installment of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1411463830

The second part of John Cantlie's series of Lend Me Your Ears was removed from YouTube for apparently violating its terms and conditions. Really?

The reason given was "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content."

British media reported that he was "reading from a script", but it doesn't look like it, does it?

What are the media trying to hide from you?

The conviction in his voice? The way he relished his words? How he seemed to be enjoying himself?

Yep.

World at One today could only talk about the legalities of airstrikes as you can hear at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hvxbh

You may think Kenneth O'Keele's point of view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqD4f4tPXOg of interest to this debate.

They had ample time to analyse the video, but they chose only to mention it in passing, with no thought of their journalistic obligation to report or analyse the most interesting story of the day.

ISIS propaganda is now so effective that you cannot actually report it honestly without drawing attention to its effectiveness.

It is for this reason that I would unhesitatingly call it a tour de force, speaking as a propagandist myself.

Even as our media and government suppress it, people will wonder why it is being suppressed, don't they have a right to know etc etc and people will look into it even harder.

As I said, absolutely relentlessly chillingly effective, each installment even more visually and intellectually engaging than the next. They seem to have their very own Steven Spielberg or Josef Goebbels. (The side shots of Cantlie's face while he was speaking was a very nice touch indeed.)

So even if you hate them you have to admire them.

When you run out of lies, then all you are left with is the truth.

When you have run out of dark places to hide from the truth, the truth will shine on you so relentlessly that the lies you clothe yourself with will melt away, leaving you completely naked.

Democracy is now naked and all of our political establishment.

What is democracy but government by Western voters who don't know and don't care about foreign policy and who don't care what is being done in their name? What is democracy but lots of dumb Western voters happy to accept that Muslims want to destroy the West just because they are Muslims ? What is democracy but Western voters not getting why Muslims don't just have another drink and forget about their government's foreign policy like they do? 

And what is the truth?

The fact is that it was the fault of those who invaded Iraq for the current state of Iraq now.

They are the ones ultimately responsible for the mess, and they have run out of ideas, except more of the same.

"If all you do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got."

In the meantime, it looks like ISIS are gaining more than Muslim supporters.

The Russians and Chinese must be secretly or not so secretly, cheering them on.

And yet the solution is so simple.

But  did it work when anyone told the Aztecs to stop their practice of human sacrifice assuring them that the sun will still rise again tomorrow?

Why didn't they listen?

Why wouldn't they listen?

Well, we all know what happened to the Aztecs.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-wests-sad-semi-war-against-isis-is-worse-than-useless/15793
Why the West's sad semi war against ISIS is worse than useless by Brendan O'Neill

The transcript is at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/transcript-of-john-cantiles-critique-of.html

Disabled People Against Claire Khaw

Disabled person in wheelchair giving the able-bodied the one-finger salute - used on Riven Vincent's Facebook profile.  Is she biting the hand that feeds her?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_173403759383478

For some reason Phillip Blond - the theologian and think tanker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Blond   @Phillip_Blond   http://twitter.com/#!/Phillip_Blond  - is a member of "Disabled People Against Claire Khaw", which I find rather bemusing.   I had no idea that he was suffering from a disability.

Claire Khaw is a Malaysian member of the BNP and a very dangerous woman, in 2009, when David Cameron lost his son, Ivan, Clair Blogged that it was a positive thing because keeping him alive was a waste of public money. She has a bizarre blog where she expresses her insane views, including "reintroduce slavery, make bastardy a disgrace, reintroduce public executions and reintroduce public floggings" ( see interview Here: http://alexlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/claire-khaw-uncovered.html) . Claire has built up a reputation online, Counting politician and journalists among her ‘friends” on face book. She has received a lot of hostility on-line from the public, but it is her views on disability which are the focus of this group on the 5th of March, 2011, 5live interviewed withy Rivern Vincent the mother of a disabled child, Ms Khaw rang up and wanted to ask a question , she then proceeded to argue that the it was fundamentally wrong for the state to0 support Mrs Vincent’s daughter, because it was not economically viable. When challenge about this by everyone including the presente Victoria Derbyshire , Mrs Vincent, another parent, and the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti (Con), she defended her posistion and went on to state openly that if she gave birth to a disabled child she would reject it and instruct the midwife to ‘get rid of it’. Now I have challenged her about her views and found her response immoral and upsetting,. Some of her replies were as follows: “Art has utility because it gives pleasure. A severely disabled baby cannot possibly give me any pleasure, though it may be very useful to you if you use it for begging money from the government and your friends and family or getting sympathy from everyone you meet.” Or “No one has said they agree with me, but there are others who do agree with me if you read my wall on that day, though they are not in the BNP. Disabled people are really getting above themselves these days.” 

According to blogs and forums, Claire is being touted as the BNP’s candidate for 2012 London Mayoral Elections. This means she will be NO. 1 on the Top-up list for the GLA for the BNP. This woman needs to be challenge. I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public lif., Iin calling for a united front against the evil bigotry of this ‘woman’ let’s challenge Claire rout her ‘views’ at every single opportunity . Invite everyone you know, because we will win.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html displays my reasoning in some detail, which I do not need to go into here.

It is tiresome to have to keep repeating that I have not advocated a policy of general extermination of the disabled by the government.

I do not believe that anyone has a right to demand that anyone else pick up the tab for their children, whether able-bodied or disabled.

Having been described as "a very dangerous woman" (as if I were really capable of breaking and entering your home and exterminating your severely disabled baby), I wish to reassure those who are easily frightened to please believe that I do not have the superhuman abilities sometimes attributed to me nor the athleticism of a cat burglar to break into your home to exterminate your disabled baby.

I am Libertarian, not Terminator.

"I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public life."

This is of course an issue of CENSORSHIP, which is of course extremely political.   

I have blasphemed and now must be punished.  I have been repeatedly called a Nazi when infanticide is in fact common to many cultures and was around for a long time before Hitler had been heard of.

Predictably, it has been suggested that the BNP (who may or may not make me the 2012 London mayoral candidate) have members and policies that endorse what I have said.  Actually, many of them wished I had not said it because they have quite enough bad press already.  For the record I should make it clear that the BNP manifesto has no policy at all on the disabled as any search at http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf would reveal.  This is probably because, like all parties, the BNP do not regard the disabled to constitute a significantly large section of the electorate to come under the BNP radar.

There are many mothers who use their disabled children as an instrument of attention- and sympathy-seeking that makes them somehow beyond criticism.   It is also a way of sorting out the pecking order amongst mothers who do not work.  The more a martyr you are to your children (disabled or not), the higher you are in the pecking order at your coffee mornings.

"You have a disabled child?  Well, I have two!"   

Their disabled children are used as weapon to bully Prime Ministers like Cameron (who used his late son Ivan to show the voting public that the NHS was safe with him).

This mania to have more disabled children and therefore be more worthy of sympathy and respect is just what Mumsnet culture consists of  ie demanding yet more handouts from the government who are so pathetically eager to pander to the female voter.

Riven Vincent is of course Queen of Mumsnet.   http://www.mumsnet.com/special-needs/riven-vincent-statement-on-respite-care

Witness how willingly our so-called alpha males - David Davis and David Cameron - humiliated themselves on Woman's Hour (which is the radio version of Mumsnet) when they suffered Martha Kearney to ask them what kind of underwear they wore.  http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=34195&sectioncode=1

Can you imagine a female politician being asked this question??

So this is how low we have sunk, that our politicians are too afraid of telling the most demanding clients of the welfare state and the most rapacious consumers of welfare - mothers of disabled children - that they too will have to suffer their fair share of the cuts.  

Pandering to the Mothers of the Disabled vote is pretty idiotic anyway, since they are so electorally insignificant.

What a shame the government will not do the obvious and rational thing and pander to the over-burdened taxpayer.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html