A Mountain Of Evidence Links Russia To The Downing Of The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

While Vladimir Putin dissembles and uses the state controlled Russian media to spin lies that border on the incredible  (e.g., all those on board Flight 17 were dead when the plane took off), the evidence continues to mount that Putin's finger prints are all over the heinous destruction of a civilian airliner with 298 people on board, including infants and children.  Putin spent billions of rubles putting on the Sochi Olympics in a bid to showcase Russia and the positive aspects of Russian culture and now in a matter of days all of that goodwill is destroyed and world opinion is rapidly shifting against Russia.  A piece in Business Insider looks at the mounting evidence that Russia bore ultimate blame for the death in the skies over Ukraine.  Here are excerpts:

There's a growing body of evidence that has emerged that links Russia to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine, despite the best efforts of pro-Russian militants to scrub the record.

About 40 miles from Donetsk in pro-Russian held territory, the flight carrying 298 passengers and crew was brought down on Thursday, killing everyone on board. The U.S. believes it was likely shot down by an SA-11 missile fired from a Buk surface-to-air missile system.

Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and pro-Russian militants have deflected, attempting to blame Ukraine for the crash. Later, the top rebel commander put forth a conspiracy theory that the passengers actually died days before, The Washington Times reports.

Pro-Russian militants allegedly discussed the receipt of Buk missile systems just days before.

On July 14, a pro-Russian militant and a man identified as "Oreon," an intelligence officer with Russia, allegedly talk about taking down planes with Buk missile systems, according to audio released by Ukraine's security service.

"Excellent. They [militants in rebel territory proclaimed as Donetsk People's Republic] are avenging for planes today, but we have a couple of days more," Oreon allegedly says. "We already have Buk, we'll be shooting down them to hell."

As The Interpreter notes, at several points in the conversation, separatists talk about the Buk missile system crossing the border, along with Russian crews. The recordings, presented by Kiev as key evidence of Moscow's involvement with the rebels, was confirmed as authentic by U.S. intelligence analysts, AFP reported Sunday.

Video posted online shows a Buk missile launcher traveling through the rebel-held town of Snizhne. 

[A]nother video posted to YouTube on July 17 is much more revealing. It was described as showing a Buk traveling near Snizhne, a rebel-controlled area southeast of the MH17 crash site. While the original video was removed for unknown reasons, Eliot Higgins, a well-respected blogger who specializes in identifying weapons in Syria and Ukraine, confirmed the location as Snizhne through geolocation techniques.

  A reporter with The Associated Press on the ground in Snizhne also observed the Buk missile system

The Buk is a highly sophisticated system that requires specialized training to operate.

In a briefing at the Pentagon on Friday, Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters that it "strains credulity" to think pro-Russian separatists believed to have shot down MH17 didn't have at least some help from Moscow. Kirby said the Buk is a "sophisticated piece of technology" that would likely require technical assistance from Russia.

"The system is not a simple system to use. You need at least four to six months of training and ongoing training to operate it," Ronald Bishop, a former U.S. Air Force missile expert, told Australia's Warwick Daily News. "To fire this system you need to have highly-specialized military training."

The pro-Russian separatist leader boasted on social media of downing an aircraft shortly after MH17 went down.

Posting on VKontakte, Russia's version of Facebook, the pro-Russian leader Igor Strelkov wrote that "we have warned them — not to fly 'in our sky.'" Strelkov, a Russian citizen who is linked to Russian intelligence, said an AN-26 (a Ukrainian military transport) had been shot down, apparently not realizing MH17 was a civilian airliner.

Pro-Russian militants were reportedly caught on an audio recording talking about shooting down a military transport before realizing they had likely downed a civilian plane.

Shortly after the airliner had crashed, pro-Russian militants were reportedly caught on leaked phone calls, apparently discussing the shooting before eventually realizing they had shot down a civilian aircraft instead of a military target.

"It’s 100% a passenger aircraft,” a militant nicknamed "Major" is recorded as saying, noting that he saw no weapons nearby. "Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper."

Militants have allegedly tried to destroy evidence and block investigators and reporters from the crash site.

If the pro-Russian militants are confident that it was the government of Ukraine that shot down MH17, it would make sense that they would allow a full investigation and keep the crash site undisturbed so that link could be made. But as many have found out, they have been doing the exact opposite.

"The assumption is they're trying to remove evidence of what they did," a senior U.S. official briefed on the latest intelligence told The Wall Street Journal on Saturday.

In another phone call released by Ukraine's security service, pro-Russian militants sound frantic in their search for the MH17 black box. "I'll try to find out [where the box is]," a militant named "Oleksiy" says. His commander responds, "Do it really quick. Urgently. Moscow asks where the boxes are," while urging the militant to keep the black box out of the hands of the OSCE.

There's more, all of it damning to Putin and Russia.  For the record, I am NOT anti-Russian.  My major in college included a minor in Russian history.  Russia is a great nation and its people have suffered horrifically because the nation's failed leaders.  Sadly, Russia is repeating the worse of its history with Putin at the helm.  If Russians want to achieve greatness, the first step they need to take is to overthrow Putin, strip him of all of the plunder he - and his political cronies - has taken to enrich themselves to the detriment of the Russian people.   If Putin sees himself as  the "new Tsar," perhaps he needs to meet the fate his communist predecessors dealt to Nicholas II and his family.  That would be a very sweet irony.

Pat Robertson: Obama Inciting 'Black-On-White Violence'

Regional embarrassment and racist Pat Robertson has let off another explosion of verbal diarrhea.  This time he is blaming Barack Obama for "inciting black-on- white violence."  The data to support this claim?  There is, of course, none.  And its all an delusion in the mind of a man who seems increasingly out of touch with any kind of objective reality who daily panders to the sense of outrage of the white supremacists of the GOP and conservative Christian groups.  These people just cannot get over their hate and bigotry and go off every time they remember a black man is in the White House.  As I have said before, it's a wonder that today's GOP city and county committee meetings don't start with all attendees donning white robes and hoods. And for non-Virginians, it is important that they remember that Robertson is historically the largest GOP donor in Virginia.  Right Wing Watch has these details:

Pat Robertson today, while discussing the shooting of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma by three teenagers, two of them black and one white, accused President Obama of inciting anti-white violence. The 700 Club host said, “We are having a tremendous amount of this black-on-white violence and I have a feeling that instead of bringing racial harmony, having an African-American president has exacerbated the problem.”
“He seems to be wanting to bring division among people instead of bringing them together; he is one of the most divisive leaders this country has ever had,” Robertson continued. “It just seems he wants to rub the edges raw every chance he gets.” Robertson argued that Obama is trying to divide people by race and class: “There’s always something there to stir up controversy.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-obama-inciting-black-white-violence#sthash.InZVuMwo.XNB1TTht.dpuf

Pat Robertson today, while discussing the shooting of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma by three teenagers, two of them black and one white, accused President Obama of inciting anti-white violence. The 700 Club host said, “We are having a tremendous amount of this black-on-white violence and I have a feeling that instead of bringing racial harmony, having an African-American president has exacerbated the problem.”

“He seems to be wanting to bring division among people instead of bringing them together; he is one of the most divisive leaders this country has ever had,” Robertson continued. “It just seems he wants to rub the edges raw every chance he gets.” Robertson argued that Obama is trying to divide people by race and class: “There’s always something there to stir up controversy.”

 

As Blue Virginia reminds us, some of Robertson's other statements include:

Of course, this is the same top Virginia GOP donor who has said: Gays Destroy Society, Want Christians in Jail; that gays are really straights with "chromosomal damage", that Planned Parenthood backs genocide and inspired Hitler, that "Wild" Liberals Support "Society of Death" 

For the record, back in my GOP activist days I got to meet Robertson in person.  In my opinion, he is an arrogant egomaniac who is having a tempestuous love affair with himself.  Obnoxious doesn't even begin to describe him. His mere presence - not to mention Regent University and CBN - are a huge negative for Hampton Roads.

   

Marco Rubio: Firing People for Being Gay Should be Legal

Marco Rubio - Anti-Gay Asshole

The more I see of Marco Rubio, the more I despise the man.   Now Rubio says he doesn't support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because he thinks it should be perfectly legal to fire employees if they are gay.   Apparently Rubio is (i) so bigoted, (ii) so stupid, or (iii) so eager to whore himself out to the white supremacist base of the GOP that he hasn't figured out that his approach to gays is identical to that of white racists who think it should be fine to fire Hispanics.  If Rubio is the future of the GOP, that future is somewhat frightening.  Think Progress interviewed Rubio where he enunciated his contempt for LGBT citizens.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is touted as a top GOP presidential prospect in 2016, thinks it should be legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.

ThinkProgress spoke with the Florida Senator at the opening luncheon of the annual Faith and Freedom Forum on Thursday and asked him about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to make discrimination against LGBT individuals illegal across the country.

Though Rubio bristles at the notion of being called a “bigot,” he showed no willingness to help protect LGBT workers from discrimination. “I’m not for any special protections based on orientation,” Rubio told ThinkProgress.

KEYES: The Senate this summer is going to be taking up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Do you know if you’ll be supporting that?

RUBIO: I haven’t read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I’m not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that’s established law.

KEYES: But not for sexual orientation?

Workplace discrimination is an all-too-frequent reality for LGBT individuals. Two out of every five openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual employees have reported discrimination at their jobs. Among transgender workers, that figure rises to nine out of ten.

Though other Republicans have applauded Rubio’s so-called “middle ground” on LGBT issues, his record of late tells a far different story. In addition to opposing ENDA and marriage equality, Rubio also said today that he would walk away from his own immigration bill if it includes protections for gay couples.

LGBT workers aren’t asking for “special protections,” as Rubio would have people believe. They’re asking to be treated like everyone else and be allowed to do their job without fear of being harassed or fired for who they are.

The reasons to not be a Republican just seem to keep on growing.  Having been fired for being gay myself, few things enrage me more that this kind of bigotry.

Archbishop Dolan Preaches More Anti-Gay Hate Despite Wave of Hate Crimes

The utter hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is truly unbelievable.  Easter Sunday morning Archbishop Timothy "Porky Pig" Dolan stated on national television that the Catholic Church needed to do a better job reaching out to gays and that "all are welcome" in the Church.  Unless, of course, you are gay, and then you're not really very welcomed at a.  New York City has witnessed a wave of anti-gay hate crimes including a brazen murder of a gay man over the last month.  So what does Dolan do?  Does he condemn the violence and speak out against religious based hate and bigotry?  No, he instead disseminates an anti-gay insert to be circulated by all Catholic parishes across America over the next month.  In short, he is helping to fan anti-gay bigotry under the guise of "protecting marriage" by depicting gays as a "threat" to marriage.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at Dolan's nasty propaganda effort.  The man is despicable.  Here are article highlights:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan has issued a directive to all Catholic dioceses to focus their sermons on “traditional marriage” and opposing the “redefinition of marriage” to include LGBT people, now through June. Dolan, who is the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and thus the top representative of the Roman Catholic Church in America, is also the Archbishop of New York, but has said not one word about the skyrocketing anti-LGBT violent hate crimes in his own back yard. 

As of Friday night, New York City has been home to nine anti-LGBT violent hate crimes this month, and 27 this year — almost double the rate of last year, which saw a double-digit increase over the previous year. But instead of denouncing anti-gay violence, instead of even acknowledging it, instead of calling for tolerance and love, Cardinal Dolan issued a directive to preach anti-LGBT hate in Church, and created a “USCCB Nationwide Bulletin Insert,” to share with all Catholics across the country.

Not only has Cardinal Dolan not acknowledged the anti-LGBT hate — which even Pastor Rick Warren admits and the vast majority of Americans agree that church teachings hold responsibility  for — but he has contributed to it.

In a blog post falsely claiming  “All Are Welcome!,” Timothy Cardinal Dolan belittled LGBT people, demanded we wash our “dirty hands” before he could accept us into his Church — and then literally barred LGBT and allied Catholics from entering NYC’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Cardinal Dolan’s home, unless they literally washed the dirt from their hands.

This silence is a testament to the passive homophobia that defines Catholic Church teaching and comments from the institution’s hierarchy regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

I would not call the Church's conduct "passive" homophobia.  It's active and virulent.  It's why I never plan to step foot inside a Catholic church ever again for any reason whatsoever.  

David Brooks: A Conservative's Gay-Marriage Delusion

In what can only be called a delusion column that purported that gay marriage would be a defeat for personal freedom, New York Times columnist David Brooks - with whom I usually disagree on nearly everything - adds another bizarre argument against gay marriage and suggests that gays don't know what they are asking for.  Apparently, in Brooks' world, not being able to enjoy inheritance benefits, a partner's pension benefits and social security benefits, paying more in estate taxes and a host of other negatives equates to "personal freedom."  Here's a sampling:

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings. 

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage. 

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention. 

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. 

There's more batshitery, but you get the drift.  What's especially crazy is that gays are constantly cited by the Christofascists as being promiscuous and irresponsible, yet when we as for commitment and responsibility, they work to move Heaven and Earth to block it.  A piece in The New Yorker responds to Brooks'  ridiculous argument and calls him out for what he is: a self-centered bigot who wants to control the lives of others even as he claims otherwise.  Here are some excerpts:

There have been all manner of conservative responses to the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, from John Roberts’s sulking about gay power to Ross Douthat’s laugh-if-you-will-but-marriage-is-collapsing line to startled acceptance of gay children—or, in the case of Senator Mark Kirk, who announced his support Tuesday, the crediting of a near-death experience—to bitter rejectionism (something George Packer writes about over at Daily Comment). And then there is David Brooks, who examines the situation and is pleased to discover that gays and lesbians have quite misunderstood what they are doing—which is, in short, to prove that David Brooks is right about the world, and that they, until now, have been wrong.

Is he under the impression that the Court is being asked to order a mass shotgun wedding? Otherwise, how does he think that gaining the option to marry means having fewer choices? 

This is the musing of the prince who thinks that the pauper is so much more free than he is—so lucky to be spared your aunt’s questions about when you are going to get married. It is blind to what those questions, or the lack of them, have really meant in people’s lives, as if there was no pain or reflection or growing old, no days when someone was turned away from visiting a hospital room. Brooks treats gays and lesbians, en masse, like hedonistic teenagers who he’s pleased to see have just grown up.

Brooks sees the bathhouses as if there were never raids on them, or as if gays and lesbians had all chosen anonymous settings over the option of holding hands while walking on the street just because they liked dark rooms better. The discovery that even in the most oppressive of circumstances one can create spaces where love survives does say a great deal about the indomitable search for freedom, but to call it freedom’s apotheosis is just absurd. 

If freedom “loses one” when gays and lesbians get to marry—and remember, it’s still only legal in nine states—one wonders what sort of developments would merit a Brooks column entitled “FREEDOM WINS ONE.”  .  .  .  .  Was Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, more free when she couldn’t tell her coworkers she was engaged without losing her job—I.B.M., her employer, was, at the time, subject to an executive order that kept federal contractors from hiring gays and lesbians as “security risks”—or the day she finally got married? He also misses a crucial point about marriage in a free country: that one of its functions is creating a space where freedom is fostered,  .  .  .  

Brooks needs to open his eyes and get his head out of his ass.

Eric Cantor Kills the Violence Against Women Act

Other than perhaps Ken Cuccinelli and Del. Bob Marshall, few politicians in Virginia are more despicable than Congressman Eric Cantor who not only seems only too happy to allow the federal government to go over the fiscal cliff, but also holds animosity against women.  How else to explain his role in killing the Violence Against Women Act.  Indeed, Chloe Angyal, an editor of Feministing.com, went so far as to call Cantor “the patron saint of rapists.”  Sadly, Cantor's conduct is very much in keeping with the GOP's agenda of trample over anyone other than angry white men and, of course, theocratic Christofascists.   Jonathan Capehart has a piece in the Washington Post that looks at Cantor's disgusting actions.  Here are excerpts:

If you were watching “Melissa Harris Perry” last Sunday, you saw my head explode over the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not over the bill itself but over the opposition of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to the tribal provision. This provision would give tribes limited authority to prosecute non-Native Americans accused of domestic violence, sexual assault and other crimes against Native American women on Indian reservations. But because of Cantor’s intransigence on this issue, VAWA reauthorization is almost dead in the 112th Congress.

I was so incredulous that I said the House Republicans were trying to protect white men from prosecution.

I think we need to ask why Eric Cantor is going to such efforts, to such extensive efforts to protect men who go onto reservations to rape women. We need to talk about it and frame it as violence against women, but we also need to flip it around and talk about it, this is about protecting rapists. That’s exactly what Eric Cantor and the House Republicans are doing when they are holding this up.

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you’ll get away with it. That’s because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there’s this: According to a General Accounting Office report on “Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters,” federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

Add the statistics above to those in the chilling congressional findings in the “Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010” and you’ll see why the tribal provision is needed in VAWA.

34 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes
39 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be subject to domestic violence

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) co-authored the VAWA reauthorization, which includes a tribal provision that gave limited jurisdiction to tribal authorities to prosecute non-Indian defendants. The bill passed the Senate with 68 votes in April. Despite ongoing talks that intensified this week and included Vice President Biden, the bill is on life support.

“The only way to reauthorize VAWA this year is for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill,” Leahy said in a statement. “If the House Republican leadership refuses to do that in the final days of this Congress, it is a shame.” And an outrage.

Cantor is indeed a vile individual and along with Ken Cuccinelli and Bob Marshall are representative of a political party that seems to be suffering from rabies or some mental disorder.  Women and every minority group need to work as a coalition to see that these men are removed from office.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Equates Homosexuality with Murder and Bestiality

Federal judges are supposed to be impartial when presiding over hearings and cases and are supposed to limit their considerations to the facts presented and the applicable case law and legal precedents.  If judges cannot remain unbiased and conform to the forgoing requirements, they are supposed to recuse them self from the case - i.e., not hear the matter and abstain from the matter.  And in the grand scheme of things, the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be the epitome of proper judicial conduct.  Enter Justice Antonin Scalia who while speaking at Princeton University equated homosexuality with murder and bestiality.  Does anyone think this arrogant, pompous blowhard can conform to proper judicial conduct in the upcoming Prop 8 and DOMA cases?  Scalia should be required to recuse himself and abstain from participating in these cases.  He has already shown his extreme bias and bigotry and how he will rule even before briefs are filed and oral arguments presented.  He is an embarrassment to the judiciary.  Here is a summary of Scalia's batshitery and bigotry via Politico:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.

Speaking at Princeton University in his native New Jersey, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, “Reading Law,” and his lecture at Princeton came just days after the court agreed to take on two cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at Hosie’s question.

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told freshman Duncan Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Then he deadpanned: “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”

Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia’s answer. He said he believes Scalia’s writings tend to “dehumanize” gays.

I'll say it again.  Scalia is an arrogant, bigoted ass and his conduct puts the judicial system and the Supreme Court in ill repute.  The man truly needs to resign or be removed from the Supreme Court.  As for where Scalia's anti-gay animus comes from, take a guess.  The Bible, of course, much of which as the last post indicates is comprised of myths and propaganda. 

Victory for Obama Nationally and for Kaine in Virginia

I haven't been blogging this evening because (i) we had guests over for dinner and the early portion of watching the election returns and (ii) I've been working on a VEER Magazine piece that's due in the morning.  That's not to say that I haven't been following the election returns closely.    At this point - 12:04 AM - Romney is still refusing to concede that he has lost to Barack Obama.  The man's arrogance and sense of entitlement just never ends.  He's a spoiled, rich brat who is out of touch with reality as I have always contended.  While Virginia has not yet been called for Obama,  the current numbers via WTKR-TV show Obama up by roughly  5,600 some votes and the areas with numbers still straggling in are all strong Democrat areas.   I am finding equal pleasure in Tim Kaine's defeat of my former classmate, George Allen in the race for the U. S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Webb.

Another first also took place tonight -  Tammy Baldwin who I was lucky enough to meet back in 2008 at the LGBT blogger summit in Washington, D. C., has won her race and become the first openly gay U.S. Senator in the nation's history.  Kudos and hugs to you, Tammy!

But there is further cause for celebration:(1)  it appears that Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins who joined in the amazing opinion bring marriage equality to Iowa has been retained by voters despite the nasty and foul efforts of NOM and Rick Santorum, and (2) the results from Maine and Maryland where marriage equality has been called as the winner.  I've seen nothing official for Washington State or Minnesota, but my daughter who lives in Olympia, Washington, says that with 81% of the vote in, marriage equality is winning.  If this holds true, even if the Christofascists prevail in Minnesota, tonight has been a huge defeat for the National Organization for Marriage, the Roman Catholic bishops, and the Knights of Columbus who will have thrown away millions of dollars that would have been better used aiding widows and their children as the founder of the Knights of Columbus envisioned.

Overall, I am very pleased except for the loss of Paul Hirschbiel to hate group leader endorsed Scoot Rigell, a devote of Pat Robertson who seems to look increasingly like Skelator.   

So what's the moral of all of this?  It's simple: hate, bigotry, homophobia, and an open embrace of white supremacy simply no longer sell with the rapidly changing demography of the nation.  If the GOP doesn't want to suffer continued defeats, it needs to kick the Christofascists and Tea Party haters to the curb. Things are not going to get better for the GOP.  Their core base of angry white, heterosexual, homophobic men is literally dying off.  If they don't grasp the fact that it's a new world, then the GOP had better get used to the concept of being a permanent minority party.