We are at a crossroads and Brexit has very little to do with it

We are at a crossroads and Brexit has very little to do with it

When we went from analogue to digital connections and digital broadcasting, the options in terms of numbers of channels of communication grew exponentially. The old monopolies were no longer as relevant as they used to be become the coming of digital technology. New generations hardly watch the old television channels or listen to radio broadcasting. They have quite a few newer alternatives to choose from targetting them according to their own personal interests.

We talk about Facebook, Twitter and a few more channels. Well, they might be important in terms of numbers but there are quite a few more choices that can be even better choices in terms of reaching people we want to reach. If you don't like certain media or those running certain media don't like you because of what you think or say or write, then you have a myriad of other choices.

The emphasis put by politicians on certain specific media is not about what people say or write. It is the fear of losing control of what is being said or written. The old censorship tools no longer work and this makes the political classes extremely concerned. So they gather in Parliament or outside Parliament and make speeches about protecting the public when in fact they are only trying to protect themselves. They are struggling and they know it. Morevoer, the old channels that they control are no longer credible. Do you believe everything you hear on the BBC? No. Do you believe everything you hear on SKY News or Channel 4 or ITV? No. You learn to take everything with a pinch of salt knowing that there is a political agenda behind every news programme. Distortion, falsification and misrepresentation are the tools used to brainwash the masses. Demonizing is the strategy to try and stop people from listening to those the mass media don't like.

Forecasts based on old certainties are no longer valid when the said forescasts are issued by people who live in their own bubbles. This is why the political classes and the mass media failed to predict the outcome of the 2016 Referendum on EU Membership. They come up with the most laughable explaination of why they didn't get the result that they expected. They say that is was 'overspending in the campaign'\. They say that it was due to something written on the sides of a bus. They say whatever to try an explain their failure. Well, during the Referendum campaign practically all messages allowed by mass media were about Remain because the BBC, SKY News and others - so called mainstream media - campaigned for Remain. The scaremongering campaign went on and on and on. In spite of all that, Leave won the day.   

Quite a few Members of Parliament couldn't care less about the people who elected them and this is why we ended up with a country that voted Leave and a Parliament that is trying to avoid Brexit.

Brexit: Uruguayan Dictatorship respected the will of the people, British Parliament doesn't give a damn about the will of the people

Uruguayan Dictatorship respected will of the people while British Parliament doesn't give a damn about will of the people

In 1980, the Military Dictatorship asked the Uruguayan people if they wanted a Constitutional Reform that would allow the Military to maintain its  political role once the country returned to institutional normality.

En 1980, la Dictadura Militar le preguntó al pueblo uruguayo si el pueblo uruguayo quería una Reforma Constitutional que le permitiría a los Militares mantener su papel político una vez que el país retornase a la normalidad institutional.

There was propaganda on all mass media in favour of the approval of the Constitutional Reform proposed and there was no debate allowed about the reform project since all political freedoms had been suspended, the right of assembly had been suspended and there were political prisoners, exiled citizens and people who had been removed from office. In spite of propaganda and aforementioned limitations the Uruguay Electorate rejected the Constitutional Reform proposed in the Referendum.

Hubo propaganda en todos los medios a favor de la aprobación de la Reforma Constitucional propuesta y no hubo debate sobre el proyecto de reforma dado que todas las libertades políticas habían sido suspendidas, el derecho de reunión  habia sido suspendido y había prisioneros políticos, exiliados y personas a que se les prohibía ejercer cargos públicos. A pesar de la propaganda y las limitaciones mencionadas el Electorado Uruguayo rechazó la Reforma Constitucional propuesta en el Referendo.

The Military Dictatorship didn't turn around and tried to reject the outcome of the Referendum. Quite the opposite. The Military Dictatorship fully respected the will of the Uruguayan people expressed in the Referendum.

La Dictadura Militar no trató de rechazar el resultado del Referendo. Todo lo contrario. La Dictadura  Militar respectó la voluntad del Pueblo Uruguayo expresada en el Referendo.

What a difference when compared to the attitude of the British Parliament that instead of respecting the will of the British Electorate decided to create all kinds of obstacles in order to ignore the will of the British people.

Una actitud muy distinta en comparación con la actitud del Parlamento Británico que en lugar de respetar la voluntad del Electorado Británico decidió crear todo tipo de obstáculos para ignorar la voluntad del Pueblo Británico.

When a Parliament that is supposed to be Democratic fares worse than a Military Dictatorship, Britain is in serious trouble. 

Cuando un Parlamento que es supuestamente democrático es peor que una Dictadura Militar, Gran Bretaña afronta problemas muy serios.

Brexit: What if Parliament cancels Brexit?

Brexit": What if Parliament cancels Brexit?

Parliament approved the public consultation - Referendum on European Union Membership. Parliament and political parties stated that they would all accept the outcome of the public consultation. When the outcome of the public consultation was known, Parliament voted to implement the constitutional processes of what we know as Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon in terms of exiting the European Union. Up to this point all went well. Soon afterwards, several politicians and public figures started to plot against the will of the British People publicly stated on the Referendum on the European Union Membership.

Some openly state that they want Britain to remain as an European Union member. Others use all kind of excuses and justifications with the same purpose. They talk about delays. They talk about motions that will prevent Britain from actually leaving the European Union.

What does this mean for trust in Democracy in the United Kingdom? If Parliament asks the Electorate and the Electorate expresses its choice and Parliament refuses to accept the will of the Electorate, what does this say about the health of Democracy in Britain?

Does the Leave Means Leave Campaign want peoples' support? Really?

Does the Leave Means Leave Campaign want peoples' support? Really?

I bought a ticket, I received the ticket by email and later on during the same evening I got another email cancelling the ticket and telling me that I violated the terms and conditions of Leave Means Leave (this was going to be my first event) and that I had been banned from attending any future events. I asked for an explanation and none was provided. By the way, there are five votes in my household. Do they want our votes? Really? If a second referendum takes place, should we support Leave Means Leave? Mmmmm....... we might have to think very hard about it. The behaviour of Leave Means Leave is contemptible.

In Barking and Dagenham Labour supported Brexit

Since 2010, Barking and Dagenham has been controlled by the Labour Party that won 51 out 51 seats in the Council. In Margaret Hodge has represented Barking while John Cruddas represented Dagenham. So, they have a virtual monopoly.

But in the UK Referendum on EU Membership, Labour voters supported Brexit. 62.4% of those registered to voted supported Brexit.

For Margaret Oppenheimer to blame Jeremy Corbyn for the outcome of the Referendum is a absolutely ridiculous. She could have convinced her own supporters. John Cruddas could have convinced his own supporters. Neither of them had the trust of Labour voters in this matter.

Angela Eagle has been hesitant in her expected role of challenger. The rebels don't want a Leadership Election and - what is more - Angela Eagle's own constituents are threatening to deselect her as their Member of Parliament. As if this wasn't enough, Labour voters across the country - including her own supporters, voted for Brexit.

Let's look at Angela Eagle's record of voting in the House of Commons regarding the UK Referendum on EU Membership:

• February 1st 2011 - Angela Eagle absent for a vote on European Union Bill
• October 24th 2011 - Angela Eagle voted against a Referendum on UK Membership of the European union.
• July 5th 2013 - Angela Eagle was absent for a vote on European Union Bill
• October 17th, 2014 - Angela Eagle absent for a vote on European Union Bill
• June 9th, 2015 - Angela Eagle voted for a Referendum on UK Membership of the European Union
• September 7th, 2015 - Angela Eagle was absent for a vote on European Union Referendum Bill.

These are statements of facts. Information that is on record.

Having done what he aimed to do, Nigel Farage resigned as UKIP Leader

For more than twenty years, Nigel Farage was a household name. His name is clearly identified with the aim of leaving the European Union.

Having achieved what he set out to do, Nigel Farage resigned as Leader of UKIP.

Now, it is the duty of Parliament to implement what the British Electorate decided on June 23rd, 2016.

Those marching on the streets claim that those who supported Leave are uneducated, ignorant, racists, bigots, xenophobes, et cetera. They don't have the capacity to understand that they are talking about more than 17 million people in Britain of which 1 million are in Scotland where 38% voted for Leave.

Now, this is the issue. The Referendum was not a Scottish Referendum. It wasn't an English Referendum, a Welsh Referendum or a Northern Irish Referendum. It was a United Kingdom Referendum and each vote carried the same weight. Therefore, those calling voters who supported Leave ignorant should look at the own knowledge of mathematics because 51.9% and one million votes difference is a sizeable majority in favour of Leave. What is more, with few exceptions the map of the United Kingdom was blue, the colour chose to represent the votes for Leave.

The proviso is that should Government and/or Parliament ignore the decision of the British Electorate, the matter will not be decided peacefully.

Harassment, Bigotry and Racism are neither Nationalism nor Patriotism

Harassment is neither Nationalism nor Patriotism

For those who claim to stand for British Values and British Interests the message is very clear: bigotry, harassment and racist behaviour has nothing to do with British Values and British Interests.

Moreover, the claims of Nationalist political parties is that they want a Europe of Independent Nations working together in peace and harmony. Therefore, harassing and insulting European Nationals is a contradiction in terms with the aims of Nationalist political parties.

But most importantly, bigotry, harassment and racist behaviour are forms of criminal behaviour that shouldn't be tolerated anywhere and those involved in criminal behaviour should be countered and be made accountable for their acts. The UK Referendum on EU Membership was a legitimate and democratic exercise but it is not a licence to engage in criminal acts and Parliament must now implement the decision made by the British Electorate.

In the meantime, those EU citizens affected by the outcome of the UK Referendum on EU Membership must be told that they have rights. In fact, according to present UK legislation all EU Citizens are entitled to claim UK Residence Rights after five years of living and working the United Kingdom. Their rights are protected by UK Immigration Laws.

We must all live in an environment in which mutual respect is the rule. There will always be anti-social individuals that will use any opportunity to engage in anti-social behaviour. They must be countered, they must be arrested and made accountable.

Gove: Things that matter more than mere economics

Michael Gove

Michael Gove: Things that matter more than mere economics.

What became immediately evident in conversations with Michael Gove is that this is a Cromwell-like politician. Remembering debates in times of Oliver Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell was much less accommodating than other Members of Parliament when dealing with Charles I.

Oliver Cromwell gave options to Charles I to come to an agreement but in the end the actions of Charles I led to his decapitation in Banqueting House. Oliver Cromwell has a certain degree of flexibility but when the King waged war on his own subjects using German mercenaries that meant having crossed a red line.

My first impression - and everything is a matter of perception - is that Michael Gove is more about certain fundamentals indicating that the EU market is important insofar certain principles like legislative powers, border control and immigration are non negotiable. There are red lines. David Cameron had an open agenda to negotiate and went into negotiations wanted to get something that in the end he did not get. Michael Gove knows what he wants and if he doesn't get it then there is no point in any kind of negotiation.

What transpires is that with or without Common Market, countries in Europe will continue trading and that the actual costs of trading will be determine by a give and take process. Seven hundred thousand jobs in Germany depend of exporting cars to Britain. Any additional trading costs will hit both British consumers and German car factories because the said trading costs will reduce German competitive advantage by raising the cost when importing and buying German cars, something that German obviously does not want.

Angela Merkel's more conciliatory approach means one thing: Angela Merkel was seriously undermined in recent elections with Alternative für Deutshland making big gains. The news that the European Union will require Germany to increase its contribution to the European Union Budget and that the immigrant business will cost Germany not less than 72 billion Euros will not improve Angela Merkel's popularity with German voters and the country faces elections pretty soon.

Add to this the fact that not less than seven countries could end up having Referenda on EU membership within two years. The prospect of losing more members within two years starting a domino effect is very much in the minds of those running the European Union including Angela Merkel.

Only today it was revealed that the Austrian Constitutional Court has indicated that there must be a re-rerun of the recent Austrian Presidential Election. Geert Wilders heads the biggest party in Holland. Front National has a very serious chance of getting Marine Le Pen elected President of France. At this point in time, the European Union and those running would not be in a position to be harsh in any way, shape or form. Those who don't want to leave want changes that the EU might not be able nor willing to deliver.

So this is the political environment in which Michael Gove has decided to stand to lead the Conservative Party. Can Britain afford to ask for more concessions? Well, the EU's position is extremely shaky. As a matter of prided, the EU could decide to be harsh on Britain. As a matter of practically and pragmatism it is a vital interest for the EU to reach an agreement before a domino effect brings down the entire edifice with more countries joining Britain on the way out.

Everybody rational is against unwarranted acts of violence but misrepresentation is a serious issue

Paula Sherriff MP speaking in the House of Commons against Racism

Anybody rational would be against racism and unwarranted acts of violence and this is why the United Kingdom has laws to persecute and penalise those who engage in acts of racism and of unwarranted violence.

Parliamentary Privilege gives Members of Parliament the right to talk about any issue they want to raise or discus without being targeted because of what they say within the space of the House of Commons. This is a fundamental safeguard but such safeguard carries with it a huge responsibility not to mislead the House of Commons or members of the public by making inaccurate or damaging statements that could also be construed as incitement to violence.

Paula Sherriff MP spoke in the House of Commons about incidents involving racism and rightly so. We all agree that racism has to be challenged because we want to live in a society in which no one is made to suffer because of racial background.

When referring to such matters, accuracy is of paramount importance and this is where Paula Sherriff MP was found wanting. Without definitive evidence, she accused an entire group of individuals of being involved in the delivery of a malicious leaflet in Yorkshire and had not been that Paula Sherriff is a Member of Parliament such statement would have constituted a criminal offence.

The misleading statement was made in the House of Commons and broadcast publicly. Even more, the written press and in particular the Yorkshire Post and its editor James Mitchinson are responsible of publishing a misleading article that accuses an entire organisation without any sound evidence of any involvement.

I was quick to remark that in the present political environment, with heightened tensions, such statement and such article could be conducive to acts of violence against third parties. I wrote to  IPSO  - the heir to the Press Complaints Commission - providing background information questioning the statement made by Paul Sherriff MP in the House of Commons and severely criticising the Yorkshire Post and its editor James Mitchinson.

I wrote also to the authority dealing with Parliamentary Standards that sent me an immediate reply stating that the statement made Paul Sherriff MP is covered by Parliamentary Privilege.

We are at a crossroads. On the one hand we must uphold Parliamentary Privilege as a necessary right to protect Members of Parliament. We must also respect the verdict of IPSO whatever such verdict might be. We must deal with the matter in a civil manner and this includes our interaction with the Yorkshire Post.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the public - both listening to the statement Paul Sherriff MP made in the House of Commons and reading the article published by the Yorkshire Post have been dangerously mislead because the information given was not factual evidence, especially when the issue concerning a malicious leaflet was referred to Police Authorities and there hasn't been any official report indicating who was actually involved in producing or distributing such leaflets.

The statement in the House of Commons and the article blaming a political organisation were published thirteen days after the said political organisation publicly condemned the attack leading to the dead of Jo Cox MP. So it is inconceivable that after publishing a declaration condemning the act of violence in which a Member of Parliament die the said organisation could possibly be involved in the delivery of a malicious leaflet mentioning Jo Cox MP.

Despite any rational explanation, despite the faintest amount of evidence, people have been blamed without any legitimate proof and this cannot be conducive to peaceful coexistence.

Labour Barking and Dagenham supported Brexit

Labour Barking and Dagenham supported Brexit.

The London Borough that has Margaret Oppenheimer as Member of Parliament and whose Borough Council is practically totally under control of the Labour Party, voted for Brexit.

In Barking and Dagenham, 62.4% of those who voted supported Brexit.

Now, put the two things together. Massive Labour majority in Barking and Dagenham and with a massive Labour majority Brexit was supported by 62.4 per cent of voters.
The truth is that Labour voters turned against the official Labour Party position and voted to get out of the European Union.

Now, who is turning against Jeremy Corbyn? Jewess Margaret Oppenheimer whose supporters voted against Membership of the European Union.

Unelected EU Commission runs the European Union

This is the reality. Presidents, Senators and Representatives in the US are elected. In the European Union an unelected European Commission calls the shots and has the initiative while the European Parliament has no powers to initiate any legislative process.

The European Union is a de-facto dictatorship and this is what those wanting to leave the European Union are about.

Twenty-Eight un-elected individuals running the European Union and telling everybody what to do but... wait a minute... one individual telling everybody what to do and his name is Jean Claude Juncker who is said to run the European Commission as his own business. The words of Louis XIV come handy: L'Etat c'est moi. I am the State.
Fundamental freedoms are being taken away from legitimately elected parliaments and given to a clique. This is dangerous and sooner than later will lead to war in Europe. Those who defend the dictatorship say that the European Union protects worker's rights. Does the European Union protect worker's rights? Absolutely not. France has been seized by strikes protesting against measures imposed by a Socialist government that cares very little about worker's right. Any words from European Union mandarins? None whatsoever. Imposition by force and repression are the ways of the European Union.

Boris Johnson: Independence Day

With characteristic flair and eloquence, Boris Johnson of Britain countered the voices of defeatism of the Remain Campaign.

Mr. Read my Lips was absent and in his place a third rank Conservative brought from Scotland as a Conservative version of the SNP took part in the debate.

Boris is the man of the day.

European Union Prosperity?

European Union prosperity? Statements made by politicians that talk about the benefits for the United Kingdom as a member of the European Union seem to be based on hot air. Looking at unemployment levels, one wonders what would the situation be if David Cameron and George Osborne were saying the the European Union is not prosperous.

With unemployment at 45 per cent, Spain is not far from Greece's 49%, followed by Italy with 39%, Portugal with 30%, France with 26% and UK with 13%.

We haven't even started talking about what is considered as 'being employed'. Zero Hour Contracts and Sub-Employment - working for a few hours with very low pay - it is seen as 'being employed'. If we add up the numbers of those working less and/or earning less, then unemployment numbers would be much higher, adding on top the number of those who are neither employed nor registered as unemployed.

David Cameron, George Osborne and others fail to make the economic case for the United Kingdom to maintain its European Union membership. They fail the political test when they support an un-elected European Commission as the Executive body of the European Union and they failed to make the case also when it comes to immigration.

Having failed on all three counts, all they have left in an endless list of threats to terrorise the British public as the number of people wanting to see the backs of David Cameron, George Osborne and their acolytes steadily grows.

Neil and Glenys and more of the same

Whether their names are Neil Kinnock, Glenys Kinnock, Tony Blair or Peter Mandelson it makes no difference. These European Champions and Heroes of Social Justice are all in it, having the time of their lives and they have got one thing in common: they are all members of the Elites that at one point or another run the Labour Party 'for the benefit of the poor and the dispossessed'.

Buckloads of taxpayers' money via the British Parliament or via the European Union by courtesy of the British Public, they have made a living promoting an agenda that has bankrupt Britain.

And when the issue is a Referendum on Membership of the European Union, they are all in it together and this comes a no surprise because it is their main source of income.

At one point or another, they spoke about an elected House of Lords but they wouldn't cut the branch of the tree on where they stand. Of the four of them, Tony Blair seems to be the only one wasn't paid by the European Union with monies coming form the British Treasury and is not a member of the House of Lords.

Remain as in Remain Campaign means 'leave things as they are and keep the privileges that we have got'. Never mind if British farmers go to the wall. Never mind if British fishing quotas are taken over by outsiders and British fisheries are closed down. As long as the 'European Champions and Heroes of Social Justice' are still around, Britain as a country will get a very bad deal.

For many years, they spoke about the NHS and saving the NHS but rest assured that they will happily justify trade deals with the US that could put an end to the NHS as soon as their paymasters tell them to do so.

EU Prosperity?

When David Cameron and George Osborne come and talk about prosperity in the EU, you have enforced labour laws implemented by the French Socialist Government of François Hollande to deal with mass unemployment.

Prosperity? What prosperity? Across the European Union, with few exceptions, there is rising unemployment that in some countries has become endemic.

Oil workers erecting barricades to protest against Socialist labour legislation and a country in turmoil. The BBC will talk British tourist having 'petrol problems' not to upset their masters - the BBC is also subsidized by the European Union to promote their political messages - and talk about EU countries as if they were talking about other planets.

Well, the myth of the prosperous European Union does not fit in with realities on the ground. Shock horror! 'The Far Right is rising'. Why do the mental retards of the mass media think the Far Right is rising? Because people are fed up of seeing their countries fall apart. Just a few thousands of votes separated the Freedom Party from the Austrian Presidency. The Freiheit Partei is growing and the fact that it almost got 50% of the popular indication that EU messages of prosperity are an absolute lie.

Democratic powers are being taken away and this is extremely dangerous because unable to change political direction by democratic means people will increasingly resort to violence and the wars that many want to avoid will happen. It is just a matter of time and time is running out.

General Election. Next Referendum on Europe

No sooner than the echoes of Labour Leadership Election are dying down, we jump straight back to the ever present issue of IN or OUT of the European Union.

Despite the importance of the subject, you might be forgiven if you simply ignore what is coming next: 2016 GLA Election and the decision to put either Zac Goldsmith or Sadiq Khan at the helm of the Greater London Authority.

Both ZacGoldsmith and Sadiq Kahn, one Conservative and one Labour, have said that they will do everything they can to stop Heathrow Airport's expansion - namely the construction of another runway and presumably coupled with new airport facilities.

but Zac Goldmith's position is a bit peculiar. He said that he didn't want any Conservative Party's decision about Heathrow before the GLA Election and that he would resign if there was such a decision before the GLA Election but that he wouldn't resign if the decision was made after the GLA Election. A politician's tactic.

If the Conservative Party's decision came before the GLA Election, the GLA Election could become a referendum about building or not building another runway at Heathrow Airport, losing the aspiring Mayor of London much needed public support. Kindly enough, Prime Minister David Cameron decided to postpone making such decision until after the GLA Election.

Now, let's talk about another expected and very much called Referendum because... it is a Referendum. Here is the news. 25 out of a total of 27 countries oppose Britain's attempt to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union - when such renegotiation was one of the conditions to postpone a Referendum on Membership of the European Union that should have happened ages ago.

Now, the Conservative Party finds itself having more allies in the Scottish National Party than in the Conservative Party but there are more weapons in the Prime Minister's arsenal to push forward of staying in the European Union despite the failure of any negotiations. Parliament should be asked to decide about lowering the minimum age to be able to vote. The calculation is that by lowering voting age that statistics show could incline the balance in favour of a decision to stay the pro-EU side could win the day.

The Daily Telegraph produce a very interesting set of statistics that indicate that those under 18 years-of-age are most likely to vote to stay in the European Union. Should there a very high turnout of those under 18 years of age the calculation is that there would be 1,035,000 votes for IN and 165,000 votes for OUT or Brexit as it is now usually called. However, for this to occur another set of statistics would have to be different and this has to do with low turnout in elections of those of a younger age.

For those wanting to stay IN, there is some consolation given the fact that the Scottish Referendum generated a turnout of 84.5. Such turnout would have be at similar levels across the United Kingdom. The ball is in the air and rest assured that from now until the day when the Referendum on the European Union is finally called.

Now, here is the issue. Will Angela Merkel be at the helm in Germany when the UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union takes place? The latest date for a German Federal Election is 22 October 2017. The earliest date is 27 August 2017. David Cameron could call a Referendum in the British summer thus asking the Electorate to vote before the German Federal Elections.

We know that at the moment Angela Merkel is not the most popular Leader in Germany and that her position regarding the issue of Refugees has been criticized by her Bavarian partners in the ruling Coalition. What will be Angela Merkel's situation by the end of 2017 or by the summer of 2017 is something that I don't and that I reckon nobody knows. It could be the case the seeing danger ahead, David Cameron might decide to call a Referendum in 2016, rather than in 2017. This is extraordinarily difficult but even so it is very much a possibility.

England and Scotland at war. Justice Secretary starts shooting.

No sooner the echoes of the Referendum should be dying down and normality should have reappeared, War has started between England and Scotland over who has the right to decide about what.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Grayling says the constitutional shake-up after the Scottish independence referendum must deliver a new deal for England. English MPs alone must have the final say over English laws, he says.

The Scottish parliament should not receive more powers over tax, welfare and spending while Scottish MPs can still “shape the destiny” of the NHS, education and justice systems in England and force “socialist policies” on their southern neighbours.

“That would be a travesty of democracy, and would be regarded with fury by the English,” Mr Grayling warns.

David Cameron made promises. As soon as the outcome of the Referendum is known, amnesia in Westminster.

US refuses to acknowledge legality of UK Referendum on Falkland Islands

A report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons says that "We are disappointed that the US administration fails to give priority to the principle of self-determination in its position on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands".

On the 32nd anniversary of the Argentinian invasion supported by the United States of America that gave the green-light to the Head of the Military Junta of Argentina General Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to invade with the proviso that US companies would get oil contracts as soon as Argentina could secure control on the Falkland Islands, the Administration of Kenyan American President Barak Obama supports Argentina's claim.

The Foreign Affairs Committee in a 67-page report says that US plays both ways - yet more proof of US's hypocritical and biased attitude against Britain.

Well, the UK government has little to complain about when they refuse to accept the will of the people of Crimea that massively supported the move for independence and for re-joining Russia.