Reason #137: Why we don't like the EU

EU could BREAK UP the US: Juncker in jaw-droppingthreat to Trump over support for Brexit

EUROPEAN Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit. 

By Nick Gutteridge, Brussels Correspondent

 

UPDATED: 16:52, Thu, Mar 30, 2017

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU. 

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments. 

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally. 

Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta this afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views. 

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same. 

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.” 

Mr Juncker's comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some "chuckles" in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission. 

They will be seen as totally inexplicable at a time when EU-US relations appeared to be on the mend, with Vice-President Mike Pence having completed a largely successful trip to Brussels and the commander-in-chief himself significantly softening his tone towards the EU project. 

Mr Juncker did not criticise Britain at all during his speech, and only made reference to Brexit in relation to Mr Trump and the opportunities it presents for Europe to reform itself. 

#Juncker: if President #Trump will continue to praise #Brexit, I will call for independence of #Ohio and exit of #Texas from US.

 — Siegfried Muresan (@SMuresan) March 30, 2017

If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US

He told the audience in Malta: “Brexit isn’t the end of everything. We must consider it to be a new beginning, something that is stronger, something that is better.” 

Speaking before him, EU Council president Donald Tusk was less reserved in his remarks about the UK vote as he tore into the populist politics which led to Brexit. 

The Polish eurocrat said the argument over sovereignty - epitomised by the Vote Leave slogan ‘take back control’ - was “a view that is both foolish and dangerous” and that the EU guaranteed countries’ strength of the world stage.

He also accused populist politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen, of promoting “organised hatred” with their views on immigration. 

However his conservative colleague Antonio Tajani, the EU Parliament president, received a rapturous ovation as he launched an impassioned defence of Europe’s “Christian values”. 

In a series of thinly veiled comments about immigration, a major political issue in his homeland and Malta, the Italian official said Europe should do more to defend its historic identity. 

He said: “We shouldn’t be ashamed of saying we’re Christian. We’re Christian, it is our history. 

“If we leave our identity we will have in Europe all identities but not European identities. For this we need to strengthen our identity. 

“It is impossible to win without identity, without our values. Of course we are different, many languages, many ideas, but we are united on the values and this is the most important content.” 

Note to Republican and Democratic Party

Why?

You selected a woman the vast majority of your own party do not want.  A woman who is deeply disturbed.  Her health is at best ... not good.  She will probably not finish 4 years because she simply cannot.  Her financial mess makes the Keating scandal look like a few cents were missing, Michael Milken misplaced a few dollars and Goldman Sachs issues seem like it involves change.

She has a husband who may well be a sexual predator.  He is mysogynistic at the very least and has assaulted multitudes of women, carrying on affairs with countless others, including quite possibly, under age girls (Jeffrey Epstein's private island, Prince Andrew et al).  She has allowed it.  Enabling a sexual predator is a crime, and she knew full well all about his extra curricular activities.  How else does he explain flights on Epstein's private plane darting off to a private island?

You can dress Hillary up but it doesn't change the fact she has lied to the American people on numerous occasions, lied to Congress, lied to everyone ... and you, the Democratic party know this full-well.  She has accepted donations from countries who butcher homosexuals, beat women, enslave women, traffic in human beings, and have no regard for free speech - yet your party attacks the Republicans for supporting Trump.

You have chosen someone who will very nearly be, as old or older than Ronald Reagan and you remember your attacks on Reagan for being too old.  Do you recall?  You should.  She is medically infirm.  Emails released by Wikileaks reveals a lot of evidence of her inability to stay on her feet very long.  I suppose she can be pushed around in a wheelchair.

The security who have protected her, secret service agents, and others have revealed just how much contempt she has for the military and intelligence agencies.  She lied about the classified emails, and we know she knew ... she was in the White House for 8 years.  She attended many meetings and those meetings had classified documents which she was made aware of, during attendance of same.  She is a liar, a horrible and pathological liar, and is unfit to serve in any government position.  She should not be privy to secret documents, nor should she ever be given top secret briefings.  Let her read the NY Times.  In fact, Kaine shouldn't either.  Why does your party select a VP candidate who worked with and aided a communist government.  A vice-presidential candidate who accepts liberation theology.  And you dared whine about Palin and her comments, which were true about Russia being visible from Alaska.  I feel very sad you are so pathetic a group, to have come so far from the time of Carter or even Kennedy.  And despite Kennedy's atrocious personal behavior, he believed in the United States.  The same cannot be said for Kaine and Clinton.

How do you sleep?

And Republicans, you allowed Trump to be in the position he now holds.  You are responsible.  You have allowed this to happen -  by making deals with Democrats, siding with ideologies anathema to your values, and by allowing millions of [Muslims or whomever] into this country is not an American value.  I would explain it to you but it would not be worth the time.  I'm sorry you have bought into the Democrats lies.  That is why the people of the party have deserted you and embraced an obnoxious and crass asshole.  You have created this monster and you have brought the Republican party to the brink of destruction.  He is a by product of your lack of conservative values.  He is a product of the distrust people now have for you.

And why do they distrust you?  Ever wonder?  Making deals that diminish American jobs and world respect.  Supporting policies in order that the administration throw you some crumbs.  Tolerating crumbs.  Tolerating the one-sided policies toward the United States.  Watching as a president uses force in more countries around the world than the previous two Republican presidents combined.  Allowing the use of executive orders/presidential findings, without taking the issue to the American people.  You become complicit in all that crap and why should they trust you.  Running candidates that are deeply flawed (yes, I know, Hillary was ...) - buying into the guilt complex Democrats throw at you. 

You should have had 3 of the Republicans drop out on day 1.  Yes, made them do so.  Had a tête à tête and sided with 1 and made it clear to the others everyone had to, or ... some consequence would befall them.  Then use everything on Hillary and dump it.  Attack her time in the White House - the amazing box of files on the sofa, the lies, the obfuscation, the filegate, travelgate ... then go after her financial and who has given to her ... every name.  Then go after the people around her and where their money was invested or received from.  Go after her time as Secretary of State ... each and every awful moment.  Go after everything ... but you did hodgepodge .... and it failed.  You didn't and now we find ourselves with Hillary Clinton on the verge of taking the White House ... a woman who has held congress in contempt, ignored laws and taken hundreds of millions from people and countries .... she is so tainted I cannot believe she is allowed to remain.  You all disgust me.

Where to go?  I wish there was somewhere.

None of you are worth it.

F@#$ you all.  FX$%# you all for ruining this country, for sending our country on a spiraling downward trajectory from which we cannot ever recover.  F@&%# you all for doing away with our sovereignty and independence.  F%@& you all. 

Sports and Social Justice

Without the names, just the idea which is much easier and simpler to address -

individuals, having witnessed via the media, actions toward African Americans across the United States over the last couple months, could stand the behavior no longer, and decided to stand up, or rather sit down for the national anthem.  This was their protest.  This was their way of showing solidarity with any number of African American males and several females who had been victimized by police.

There has been bad behavior by police for many months, years ... and apparently no one thought it necessary to act at that time, but now is the time.

Evidence suggests that Black youth ages 12 to 19 are victims of violent crime at significantly higher rates than their white peers.  Black youth are three times more likely to be victims of reported child abuse or neglect, three times more likely to be victims of robbery, and five times more likely to be victims of homicide. In fact, homicide is the leading cause of death among African American youth ages 15 to 24.
Living in urban environments also increases the risk of exposure to violence and one-quarter of low-income, urban youth have witnessed a murder. In one study of inner-city 7-year-olds, 75 percent had heard gunshots, 60 percent had seen drug deals, 18 percent had seen a dead body outside, and 10 percent had seen a shooting or stabbing at home. In a Chicago study, approximately 25 percent of Black children reported witnessing a person shot and 29 percent indicated that they had seen a stabbing. After one of the children participating in this study described the violent deaths of seven close family members, an eight-year-old remarked that "just" three people in her family had died violently. Such family and community violence is most often perpetrated by persons known to the youth, and is likely to be reoccurring—creating potentially greater harm to a developing child than would a one-time incident of victimization.
Youth exposure to victimization is directly linked to negative outcomes for young people, including increased depression, substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, homelessness, and poor school performance. Youth victimization increases the odds of becoming a perpetrator of violent crimes, including felony assault and intimate partner violence, doubles the likelihood of problematic drug use, and increases the odds of committing property crimes.
Despite the far-reaching impact of crime and violence exposure on children and teens, our nation’s youth do not receive the support and guidance needed to cope with these traumatic experiences. One estimate finds that only between two and fifteen percent of victims of all ages ever receive any victim assistance, and another indicates that among African American victims, only about nine percent of people sought help from non-police agencies that provided services.

There is a problem.  A real problem.  One that threatens not just some, but all, and is more insidious than bad policemen or a bad court ... it threatens the family, the children ... it threatens generations of black children, and that threat will perpetuate a cycle of violence and bad behavior by the police, illegal, and violent as it may be and is presently.

I assume those athletes are doing something about a danger that threatens to destroy the black community.  They feel strongly enough to sit down for the national anthem, collect their $100 million pay checks ... I am sure they are providing millions in aid, their time, and support.

They don't care what I think, and that's fine because I have no interest in what they think, but until such a time as we hear them speak up and do more publicly to deal with the real issues listed above affecting every African American ... I have no interest in following any sports team.  It's a waste of my time.  When they are able to understand perspective, the differences between what the police do and the magnitude and scale and .... what we, the people are and have done to make changes for all Americans ... until then I will sit on the sidelines, when they grow up and act responsibly, I will rethink my choice.

Bill Maher: Not funny and Still the Village Idiot (albeit with lots of money like the 1%).

What a sexist pig.  Women everywhere should be condemning this man.  A boycott should be started by the women in PINK and the NOW should be marching on the network that provides him with a home.

(Btw, will you release your tax returns so we can all see how generous you have been with your money and the generous taxes you have paid)



On Friday's "Real Time," Maher double down on Hilary Rosen's controversial statement that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life" by saying that, "what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work."

"No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job," said Maher. "I remember that I was a handful. Okay, but there is a big difference in being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your ass out of the door at 7am when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, and even if you're unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is a different kind of tough thing."












idiots on parade

Chavez and His Last Days

Chavez returns to Venezuela amid rumors -


"Perhaps to prove the point, in January he gave what may have been the longest ever presidential speech, talking for almost 10 hours nonstop, assuring Venezuelans that he was “completely cured” from the cancer he was diagnosed with last June."

10 HOURS.  Even Biden can't talk that long.  And the Venezuelans, do they buy his 'completely cured' diagnosis?

“We’re all praying for a speedy recovery for our Comandante,” self-confessed diehard chavista Glenda Colmenares said outside a church in central Caracas. “This is a difficult time for us but we have to have faith that Chávez will be OK. Without him there is no revolution.”

Yep.

An educated populace.

It is not a matter of wishing.  They believe.

Change?  Not when they are consumed by such ignorance.

Thankfully the man will be dead soon and they can get over their naivety.  Perhaps even grow up.










venezuela

Stupid People: Fall Out of the Trees Every Day

We all know who the children are, out in the tents and cardboard boxes.  Children who enjoy whining.  Whining about the 1% who have everything.  Whining about not having jobs.  Whining about the rich taking advantage of the 99%, jobs lost due to the 1% wanting profits over compassion ... we know they are children and that they whine a lot. 

Now we know they will cost someone or many people their jobs, and additional services and funds will be cut.  Funds that might help the 99%.  Funds that will never be received now, due to the children requiring parental supervision, and refusing to clean up their messes and go home.

Children who whine.  Let them tell the employees laid off or the family without services why.  Let them explain that their whining did anything but cost human beings their jobs and their assistance.

Let them eat cake.  Would make as much sense.

Mayor Calls For Budget Cuts To Offset Millions In Occupy LA Costs

December 21, 2011 1:10 AM

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The City of Los Angeles reportedly faces millions of dollars in expenses brought about by the Occupy LA movement.

City agencies have been ordered to calculate what was spent on the Occupy LA protests.

Repairs to City Hall’s lawn where the Occupy group set up camp on Oct. 1 will require an estimated $400,000. The police action to clear out the encampment on Nov. 30 cost more than $700,000.

Additional expenses are attributed to hauling away debris from the camp, and cleaning up graffiti that defaced City Hall marble walls and trees.

Mayor Villaraigosa says more budget cuts will be necessary to offset the costs.

children

WATER does NOT hydrate

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day Photo: ALAMY

By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins

6:20AM GMT 18 Nov 2011

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."
German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.
They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.
They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.
However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Do you think water hydrates?

Yes - It clearly refreshes my body's liquid levels.No - I agree with the new EU ruling.Not sure - I feel that the jury is still out.I simply don't care - this research is a complete waste of time and money.

VoteView Results
Share This

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.
“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.
“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”
Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.
He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”













water

Dumber than Mud

There are those moment when you stop and wonder why God allowed such dumb creatures.  Ever watch an ant eater?  Makes little sense.  And a sloth - what on earth was going on with that creature.

And then we come to people who believe in fairies.

This is a video clip and will eventually be removed, as happens with all video clips.  However, the article follows.  The video clip can be watched (while it is posted) at this site.  Otherwise, the article follows:

Mexican claims he found a fairy

By Indo Asian News Service


Guadalajara (Mexico), Aug 12 (IANS/EFE) An unemployed 22-year-old bricklayer claims he has found a fairy in this western Mexican metropolis.

Jose Maldonado, who charges a monetary 'donation' in exchange for displaying what appears to be a simple plastic figure kept in a container of formaldehyde, says he has already received 3,000 visits from people eager to see the so-called fairy at his home in Lomas Verdes, one of Guadalajara's poorest and most dangerous neighbourhoods.

'I was picking guavas and I saw a twinkling. I thought it was a firefly. I picked it up and felt that it was moving; when I looked at it I knew that it was a fairy godmother,' Maldonado told EFE.

The tale of the fairy that Maldonado claims to have discovered last weekend has run like wildfire through the area and his home is now besieged by the curious, some of whom wait for up to an hour to enter.

What Maldonado shows the paying public is a small container filled with formaldehyde containing a humanlike figure about 2 centimeters tall, with a gelatinous consistency and a certain resemblance to Peter Pan's Tinkerbell.

Maldonado says that what seems to be just a little plastic figure is a fairy and that it was alive when he found it. And there are those who believe him.

'I've seen everything and, yes, I believe the fairy is real. Therefore, I wanted to come to confirm that those myths are true,' said Cesar Ramirez, a visitor.

To be allowed to examine the 'fairy' for a few seconds and take a photograph of it, the curious must make a donation to financially help out Maldonado who recently lost his job.

His neighbours have also taken advantage of the situation to sell photographs and keyrings with the image of the fairy for about 20 pesos ($1.60), as well as refreshments including drinks and food to those people while they wait in line outside Maldonado's house.

mexico

Worst Since Carter: Too Bad, Barrack H.

(Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment worsened sharply in early August, falling to the lowest index level since 1980, even though retail sales posted the biggest gains in three months in July, separate reports on Friday showed.

U.S. consumer sentiment dropped to its lowest point in more than three decades as fears of a stalled recovery combined with despair over government policies, a survey showed.

Must be hard to pull your base together Move-On.org when your messiah so screws everything up!   The worst consumer confidence since the last time - a democratic president Jimmy Carter.  It must be hard when everytime he speaks the economy sinks.  When he sells the most advanced tanks to a country on the verge of take-over by Islamists (Egypt) thereby threatening our ally in the region (Israel).  It must be hard.  Hearing him speak extemporaneously is painful - he masticates his words and fumbles his speech - and that must be painful for you given your apoplectic state when Bush spoke.  It must be painful to rally people around someone who so disdains what they stand for - America is a tool by which your messiah can achieve his goal.  For other Democrats, America is the end result, and the people make it better.

I am sorry you have such a hard time, but then again, you deserve it.  Your founding father did what he does best a few days ago - he bet against our economy and made $1 billion dollars.  He does that well - whether the English, Russian, or Indonesian ... he is a parasite.  I can only hope one government sooner than later, finds a treatment for parasites like him.

obama

Christianity should not be the basis for our laws or society (says court)

One does not have to be the most observant Christian to recognize where this policy takes us.  These twats on the high court do not deserve to be on the high court, they deserve ignominy.

The precedent for this is more dangerous than pretty much anything else.  Just when I didn't think it possible to go lower ....



Foster parent ban: 'no place’ in the law for Christianity, High Court rules


There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

The Telegraph
By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
28 Feb 2011



Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.

Campaigners for homosexual rights welcomed the judgment for placing “21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice”. Christian campaigners claimed that it undermined the position of the Church of England.

The ruling in the case of Owen and Eunice Johns, from Derby, is the latest in a series of judgments in which Christians have been defeated in the courts for breaching equality laws by manifesting their beliefs on homosexuality.

Senior churchmen, including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, recently began a campaign urging Christians to stand up for their rights and have petitioned the Prime Minister to review human rights laws.

In their ruling yesterday, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity.

“Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century,” they said.

It was a “paradox” that society has become simultaneously both increasingly secular and increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, they said.

“We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to 'do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’.”

The judges acknowledged that there was a “tension” in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns between the rights of individuals to maintain their religious beliefs and the rights of homosexual people to live free from discrimination.

However, when fostering regulations were taken into account, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence” over religious rights, they said.

Andrea Williams, from the Christian Legal Centre, which backed the Johns’s case, said the ruling “undermines the position of the established Church” in England.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as “absurd”. He pointed out the monarch took a coronation oath promising to uphold the laws of God, while Acts of Parliament are passed with the consent of “the Lords Spiritual”, and the Queen’s Speech finishes with a blessing from Almighty God.

“To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong,” he said.

“However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.”

Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals’ beliefs.

“They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,” he said.

“The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself implies there is one in which the right to practise one’s religion is subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality.”



















stupid people

People who just don't get it

How secretive and shabby the Americans are


Bob Ellis


There was no rejoicing in Times Square when Hirohito died, though he ordered the killing of 2350 Americans in Pearl Harbor. I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, or Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung. Or Che Guevara. Or Salvador Allende. Or Joseph Stalin.

These laughing, flag-waving, crowded scenes outside the White House and across America have no precedent (except, perhaps, in the South when Lincoln was shot) and it is to be wondered why they occurred.

There was a magical-realist quality to Osama Bin Laden. He looked like the risen Christ, and was often thought dead and came always back to life. His broadcasts needed always to be authenticated because the CIA wanted him dead. He’d humiliated them so enormously they kept saying he was dead. He was ‘on dialysis’, they asserted, wrongly; he had to be dead by now. 9/11 was so clever. He had to be dead.

And once again they are covering up, and in denial.

As with John F Kennedy, whose brain was stolen, his car washed of its blood, film of his autopsy made to vanish, his alleged assassin murdered and that assassin’s evidence unrecorded, burnt or discarded, we have here, now, a significant body, the corpse of the world’s most wanted man, ‘buried at sea’. Why do this? Why even think of it, when identifying him forensically was critical to the peace of the Arab and Muslim world?

Uday and Qusay weren’t buried at sea, nor the twenty-four-hour burial rule applied to these two cosmeticked enemy stiffs. Saddam was helicoptered home to his tribal city (by Mike Kelly MP and Minister for Cheese) for interment in his clan’s sacred ground. Why treat Osama any differently? Why put his body where it couldn’t be checked over? Why not have an autopsy? Why not give their most famous son back to the rich Bin Laden family, and see them set him down in their family plot? What right do Americans have to a fallen enemy’s corpse? Where did that new rule come from? How dare they?

Clearly they feared the sight of his widow, wounded in the fire-fight, at the graveside of him and his dead son, and the sight of his grieving daughter and his other sons would humanise him in an inconvenient way. Clearly they feared his grave would become, like that of Karl Marx or St Thomas a Beckett, a pilgrim shrine for apostles yet unborn.

But there were other, forensic reasons too.

A coronial enquiry, with witnesses, would show if women were fired upon, or children. It would show if Bin Laden took his own life, as Allende did, it seems, or if his bodyguard, sworn to kill him in such a circumstance, shot him as well, in the back, perhaps.

It would show if he had his hands up, and he was therefore killed against the rules of war, or if his wife said, ‘Please, no.’ It would also get from his wife and daughter evidence of who had lodged them in their splendid quarters, who paid the bills, who took the children to the local school, and what Mushareff knew, and what Azari knew, and indeed what Benazir Bhutto knew, of his five-year stay, if that is how long it was, only three minutes’ walk from an army academy, the West Point of Pakistan.

How shabby the Americans are. How secretive and stupid.

One thinks of the 600 plots to kill Castro: the poisoned face cream, the poisoned wetsuit, the exploding cigars, the former girlfriend who, after sex, couldn’t do it, even when he offered his gun. How low grade they are. How creepy. How overpaid for their shoddy scheming and their bungled midnight raids.

And Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea. Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones are coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Imagine Hitler, buried at sea. Or Trotsky. How stupid can they be?

For there is no end to it now. As with Elvis, his voice, his image will recur on websites for fifty years. Was it him? Did he survive? Is he still alive? He must be. He must be. His widow will charge his American assassins with war crimes for killing and wounding civilians: her son, herself, her daughter. His family will spend millions cleansing his name. The Sunni clergy will denounce the blasphemous travesty of his last rites, not on family ground but the cruel sea.

Karzai will demand compensation for the towns destroyed in America’s vain search for him, in the wrong country. The Saudi royals will be shown to have given him money and Bush to have known this while his father took fees from them. A good few Pakistani colonels will be tortured and shot. The Navy Seals that shot him (in the face, not the legs) will get jobs on Fox News. The Taliban will seize Pakistan and its WMD. And his legend, like Che’s, will grow luminous, and more and more twelve-year-old suicide bombers go into supermarkets whispering his name.

And all they had to do was keep the body, film its autopsy, open it to media view and give it back, in due season, to his family for a proper Sunni funeral, as they did Saddam and Uday and Qusay, in the green, green grass of home.

What klutzes they are. And how dearly we all must pay for their clumsiness, in a rejuvenated al-Qaeda and acts of terror without end, in this country too. And an atomic war, perhaps.

And it’s a pity.

PS. Osama was unarmed, we now are told, but he ‘resisted’ and so was shot ‘above the left eye’ and ‘part of his brain was blown away’. This, and other details, might explain why Barack Obama spent so long rewriting his speech, his worst thus far on a great specific occasion, and why he seemed uneasy giving it. What, we may ask, is he now to say of a murder committed by uninvited American troops on foreign soil, illegally?

And what is he to do with an illegally kidnapped widow, daughter and sons, and their ongoing education in Abbottobad?

And, indeed, with the question, why are we in Afghanistan?

And with the further, larger question, why, if Osama Bin Laden was for five years in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s rulers knew of it, we are not making war on Pakistan today? In reprisal? As we did on Afghanistan?

Why are we in Afghanistan, by the way?

Is there any reason left?
































idiots