Wednesday, 28 December 2011


On January 3rd 2012, The Republican primaries will officially begin with the Iowa Caucus.

The Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1,784 precincts and elect delegates to the corresponding county. There are 99 counties in Iowa and thus 99 conventions. These county conventions then select delegates for both Iowa's Congressional District Convention and the State Convention, which eventually choose the delegates for the presidential nominating conventions (the national conventions). The 2012 Iowa Caucuses are scheduled to take place on January 3, 2012.
The Iowa caucuses operate very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states. The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbours." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years.

In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them. After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media. In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands or pre-printed ballots. The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn select delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.

The State of the Race

With 7 days to go until the Iowa Caucus, it is now absolutely clear that Romney is a front runner; other than that, pollsters haven’t a clue as to who will win the ‘First in the Nation’ primary.
According to Real Clear Politics, Ron Paul is leading the Iowa Caucus by 3% (within the margin of error) but Rasmussen Reports show Romney leading by 5% & PPP show Paul leading by 4%. Paul, like Romney has stayed in the early to mid 20’s for some time now and hasn’t really made a move. However in the national polls, Gingrich & Romney are streets ahead of the rest of the field. So it is rather perplexing indeed.

Regarding Iowa specifically, you do have to look at the history of these primaries, to show you that it doesn’t really indicate the eventual nominee.

• In 1980, Ronald Regan didn’t win the Iowa Caucus but yet still won the nomination.
• In 1988, George HW Bush didn’t win but still won the nomination (incidentally, he did win the 1980 caucus against Reagan).
• In 2008, John McCain didn’t win (finished 4th) but still won the nomination.

A win for Ron Paul will for sure wake up the GOP voters in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida etc to choose a serious candidate. The fact that Paul is in the lead now, may provide that tonic.
Iowa caucus goers have flirted with fringe politicians in the past, however they have never managed to go through with giving them the caucus win.

In 1996, Pat Buchanan almost pulled off a surprise victory; he lost by 3% to Bob Dole.

Media mogul, television evangelist & ex-Baptist minister Pat Robertson, finished second in the 1988 Iowa Caucus.

It remains to be seen as to whether the Paul 'ground game' is and vast and committed as they say it is. It is easy to say over the phone to a pollster who your preferred candidate is, but when the voting starts, will you make that effort to go to the caucus regardless of the terrain – this explains why the weather forecast will decide the outcome.

Low turnout & poor weather= good for Paul; Medium to High Turnout with suitable weather = anyone’s game.

The weather forecast (as per the below) is set fair for caucus day. This means that more people will make an effort to attend, rather than not, which should mean a higher turnout.

Romney has rallied big in the last few weeks and is starting to gain in the polls. He appears to be like a long distance runner, steadily going along and then just rushes through the field to win at the last few metres. He has significantly played down expectations throughout this primary and has only recently started throwing big money into the pot.

Gingrich who led a few days ago, has lost a lot of momentum since he’s been on the receiving end of thousands of dollars of attack ads from rival candidates. It is up in the air as to whether these really have taken their toll and only the result will tell us how badly he’s lost his vote share.

I am warning everyone not to discount Perry & Santorum. Perry has the evangelical vote, Bachman was born in Iowa & Santorum is the classic Social Conservative. I am sure that if the terrain were different, Santorum would be right up there with a serious shout.

CNN, MSNBC & NBC are all terrified of Huntsman & think he’s the real deal. This baffles me as he has been below 5% for since his announcement and hasn’t really got a viable message out. Since he’s been so low in the polls, it may make a better than expected performance look better than it really is and keep him in the race for a little longer.

For the candidates it’s all about expectations. Money dries up really quickly in presidential primary politics. They must come out of Iowa with a credible reason to carry on otherwise life will become difficult. For example, If Santorum or Bachman don't make a serious move and remain second tier candidates, why would anyone look to invest in their campaigns. However, if say, Huntsman or Perry exceeds expectations, then they can lay claim to the momentum and more people will throw money at them.
However let’s not discount the ‘McCain Factor’. He had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007, due in part to his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was unpopular among the Republican base electorate. Large-scale campaign staff downsizing took place in early July, Later that month, his campaign manager and campaign chief strategist both departed. McCain slumped badly in national polls, often running third or fourth with 15 percent or less support and his money completely dried up.
He didn’t pull out of the race but rather changed tack, resumed his familiar position as a political underdog, taking advantage of free media such as debates and sponsored events. By December 2007, the Republican race was unsettled, with none of the top-tier candidates dominating the race and all of them possessing major vulnerabilities with different elements of the Republican base electorate. With that he went on to win the New Hampshire Primary and the won the party’s nomination.
That lesson teaches you that it’s never over until the final whistle. What candidates need to do is convey a message about their candidacy and why it is necessary for our times.
Some candidates thrive on bad press and will use a siege mentality to win votes. For instance, in 2008, Hilary Clinton was running against Obama in New Hampshire Democratic Primary. Obama was coasting and gaining in every poll until the day before the primary when Clinton lost on TV and burst out in tears. Folks then moved to her camp and she won the primary.

Trying to predict the Iowa Caucus is very difficult due to the uncertainty of the electorate. Therefore, I am going to predict the expectations after the caucus.

I believe that Romney will make big gains on Tuesday, he may not win it but he will certainly come away feeling a lot better than 2008. His money will not dry up as he is looking rather strong in New Hampshire.

Even though the focus is on the economy, a part of Iowa still cherishes Social Conservatism, which makes me feel that Santorum & Perry will have better than expected evenings. Bachman will struggle with those two in the race which is why I don't think she will make any gains.

I think that Gingrich hasn’t done enough to counter the negative advertisements and his vote share will lessen as a result. His record, ideas and experience speaks for itself, which will certainly ensure that he doesn’t collapse in Iowa.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Ron Paul wins but I don't believe he will. The weather is set fair and more people will come knowing he may win.

Huntsman will exceed his ridiculously low expectations but not make any serious noise from the basement of the primary.

All of this makes for enriching viewing on Tuesday and we will be following the events closely.

Thursday, 24 November 2011


A large number of folks say to me "this is a weak GOP field. The proof is in the pudding and the fact that certain people aren’t running is proof that Obama is unbeatable ".

Well let’s analyse that for a second.
Who could’ve run but hasn’t and why?

Governor Chris Christie

Christie was never going run. He has and always said that his job for now is Governor of New Jersey. Yes, he would be a phenomenal candidate and future President, but when you say that you’re not ready, you have to trust your instinct. I know a lot of people who were upset that someone applied tremendous pressure on Christie to run, primarily because they though he would be the best for the job, however in my eyes, he has a lot to learn and to prove in New Jersey. You also have to assess the terrain before running for President. He is a straight talking, no nonsense, hard nosed, fiscal conservative and wildly popular amongst Reagan Republicans. To run for President you have to be certain that you are ready for everything that comes your way. Just ask Teddy Kennedy when he was asked in 1979 why he wanted to be President His voice staggered and stammered. Words failed him and it was clear he had no plausible reason to be running for the office. In a sense Christie is an old fashioned kind of guy; he wanted to make sure of his ground rather than jumping into the race unprepared alas Rick Perry.

Governor Sarah Palin

She’s a smart women and she would’ve know that her ‘unfavourable’ ratings are rather large at the moment. Since, 2008, she has increased her popularity within the Tea Party and the Conservative voters by endorsing candidates throughout the country and shaping the debate.
However, she is wildly unpopular with the moderates and Independents.
What she needs to do is show the American people that she can carry out an effective job. When she quit as Governor of Alaska, she basically created a rod for her own back. Ideally, she should look at Hillary Clinton. She has raised her standing through being a Senator and then Secretary of State, now she is looked at as the alternative to Obama. If Palin can show the American people that she can hold onto a job and is effective at it, then she will improve her image amongst moderates and independents and be a formidable force in 2016 and beyond. If she stays out of a job, she will only look more isolated and become a fringe candidate.

Governor Mike Huckabee

He is the one who I was surprised that didn’t run. Like Romney, he suffered with name recognition in 2008. What he did was stay in the race and statistically came 2nd in the nomination process. Romney dropped out much earlier and looked the better for saying he would stand with, the then, presumptive nominee, John McCain.
He did win 8 primaries in 2008 but people never took him seriously as I don't recall people saying at the end of the primary or in the lead up to 2012: “ah shucks, I am sorry that Huckabee isn’t involved”. He’s a likeable guy and a man of morals as a former Baptist minister, but he lacked the gravitas and authoritative rhetoric to excite the voters.
I think he is very happy doing his Fox News Show and other speaking engagements. Increasing his name recognition and wallet in the process.

Donald Trump

What do you say about this man? I agree with a lot that he says but the man is in showbiz. His pursuit of the Obama Birth Certificate was commendable and also was a massive publicity event, probably for his own TV show ‘The Apprentice’. He is also majorly egotistical and if would’ve lost the Primary or in fact the General Election it would’ve done irrevocable damage to the ‘Trump’ brand. People like that are only in it for themselves and his calling in political life surely would be the inner council on economic policy or something like that. To be Treasury Secretary would be too restrictive for him and he would have to forgo a lot of his day to day work.

Gov. Mitch Daniels

A sitting governor for the state of Indiana, he is a fiscal Conservative. He would ensure that the deficit and cutting spending would be a cornerstone of the 2012 election. A former Bush White House budget chief, had one obstacle against running for the nomination; His Wife. He cited (against his reasons for not running) that "The interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. I understand that running for high office throws you and your family into lion’s den but you have to really want to be President to go through all of that. If Mitch wanted that much to be the nominee he would have convinced his wife. now he is in the same camp as Colin Powell.

I don't believe for one second that this is a weak GOP field. It is a stronger field than in 2008 when we really had no preference on who the candidate would be. Essentially we have more options to choose from:

Romney and Herman Cain are angling from the business sector experience.

Gingrich, Bachman & Paul are espousing their experience in the Congress.

Santorum is touting his Social Conservative record.

Huntsman and Perry are using their gubernatorial record.

So I am far from concerned, I am excited with the field (except Ron Paul) and am looking forward to seeing how this race ends up.

Monday, 21 November 2011


He‘s a Republican, libertarian, congressman for Texas and he’s been polling between 3-9% on average this 2012 GOP primary cycle...

His name: Ron Paul

The flagship policy of the ‘Paul for 2012’ Campaign has been the calling for auditing the Federal Reserve (The Fed). He has been relentless in his attacks against the current chairman, Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan. Due to his persistence, we now have an open consensus from the current GOP 2012 field for the auditing of the (The Fed) and the firing of Bernanke.

That a great result indeed for the gynaecologist.


I slightly disagree with this quote from Newt Gingrich:

“Every one of these candidates (GOP 2012) will be a massive improvement from Obama, who scares us each and every single day”.

I don't think that Ron Paul should be included in that list, in part due to the fact that he is a classic isolationist and irrational.
I have major issues with people like Paul and his followers. ‘Screw the rest of the world; we need to focus on our own storefront’. That is all well and good, but in today's day and age, you need to keep your finger on the pulse and always mind your surroundings.

China and India are working everyday to improve their competitiveness, Iran is looking to destroy Israel and the West and the Muslim Brotherhood are spreading Sharia Law and ethnic cleansing fast; not to mention a bullish Russia looking to impose themselves on the world once again and the pending collapse of the European Union. With all of that going on, you would want to have someone that knows a thing or two about dealing with these issues, as it is for sure going to impact the USA. Yet, Ron Paul would stop foreign aid, stay out of conflicts throughout the world and end any foreign operations or assistance. All under the guise, that if we stay out of their business, they aren’t gonna hate us that much.
That is akin to the foreign policy in 1990’s under Bill Clinton, which was a precursor to 9/11.
Additionally, Ron Paul would have you believe that America, not Radical Islam is the reason why 9/11 happened. Paul would have you sit through a lecture on the constitution rather than fight for our existence against Al-Qaeda. Maybe I should give a lecture to Paul Ron Paul and his cult about Islam and the Caliphate.

For sure, he is not the best candidate around, nor does he have a good chance of being the nominee; so why are people sticking with him? Answer, people like the idea of living in a utopia.

The 'Paul' gang would love to be in a place where there is no terrorism, foreign aggression or nuclear weapons, where there are no existential threats to humanity and that everyone just needs to be left to their own devices and harmony will spread throughout our world. The problem with that is, there is a ‘real and constant’ threat that needs to be met, come what may. President Paul would lead America to the edge of the precipice, with his narrow-minded, impractical, out of touch rhetoric to foreign affairs.

My biggest concern is that he may well be the reason for ushering in Obama for a second term. Though he may deny it, his followers are desperate for a 3rd party run and are doing everything they can to create an opening for that to be the case.

I asked one Paul supporter whether they would support Romney over Obama and he said: “there is no lesser evil, both will kill this country.”

Surely Ron Paul knows that spending,entitlements,regulation,taxes,cutting government waste & a balanced budget will not happen unless Obama is defeated.
A normal movement that cares about the country would look at the bigger picture here and support the nominee to defeat Obama. I can say for certain that the nominee will NOT be Ron Paul.

Monday, 14 November 2011

It's the Economy, Stupid!!!!

The campaign of Rick Perry has startlingly flat-lined, Michelle Bachman has shrunk into obscurity after her straw poll win in Iowa, Jon Huntsman and his “world-shattering” campaign has never kicked off and Rick Santorum hasn’t imposed himself at all.

There are however three people that are currently hot in pursuit for the GOP nomination:

Mitt Romney; Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.

For Romney, it’s a case of ‘easy does it’. He hasn’t made mistakes, nor seemed out his depth and has stayed between 20- 25% since the beginning of this race. He isn’t, nor will ever be the flavour of the month with the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. He is safe with the Independent and Moderate voters but the Conservatives absolutely don’t trust him at all. His health care law in Massachusetts has taken a lot of heat and his flaky stance on Abortion and Global Warming.
Conversely, he has remained steady and wouldn’t be the worst candidate to take on Obama.

For Cain, it’s been some story.
In May 2011, he was polling at 4%, now he is at around 20%. A truly remarkable rise to the top.

How has he done it?
Through not being a politician and straight talk.
What could be his downfall?
Not being a politician and talking straight.

Before the sexual harassment claims came out, he was flying in the polls with his direct message regarding the tax system (the 999 plan), ObamaCare, the economy but since the scandal he has acted rather feebly. Yes, these rumours are just hearsay, but what he did, was go to every News Agency and issue mix messages and belittle the situation. Only after the accuser went public, did Cain get serious and issue a press conference.
Ideally from day one he should wholeheartedly admit that there was a settlement or arrangement when he was the President of the National Restaurant Association and explained the claims which would have stopped it cold, regardless of who ‘planted’ the story.
As a result, he is now beholden to any accusers who can come up with incriminating evidence. That is a horrible noose to have around your neck and it has already shown to be a negative in the polls. “Values Voters”, will be thinking twice about whether to vote for Cain.
(A point to ponder, in 2000, George W Bush, apparently lost 2 million voters after his was found to be Driving under the Influence (DUI). We all know who close that election was).

Then you have Newt Gingrich, he collapsed at the beginning of his campaign with horrendous comments regarding Paul Ryan, a revelation that he had a massive credit line with Tiffany’s and his wife being a huge drag on the campaign. As a result there was a mass exodus of staff and he was being pressured to drop out.
In July 2011, he was polling nationally at 6%, now he’s at 18% and rising.

He’s raised his standing through using his vast knowledge and experience as Speaker of the House and setting up businesses around the country, to run an ‘issues based’ campaign. It is fair to say that he has sounded smarter than most during each debate and his message is slowing resonating with the voters. He is also gaining votes for taking on the media during this election cycle.

So the stage is set. On paper it is Romney all day, however, Evangelicals and Conservatives are key for turnout. In 2000 & 2004 Bush was helped over the line by his base (Evangelicals and Conservatives). McCain didn’t have that luxury in 2008; only until Palin came onto the scene, did his poll numbers increase a great deal.
What people need to know is....Elections are won and lost on the Economy.

In 1980 – Reagan beat Carter, when the latter held office with double digit inflation and interest rates.

In 1992 Bill Clinton beat George W. Bush with the Clinton mantra of “it’s the Economy, Stupid”

In 2000 George W. Bush beat Al Gore with his talk about less government and lower taxes.

In 2008 Barack Obama beat John McCain after the economic meltdown in October. (Before that happened, McCain was up by 4points!)

I haven’t endorsed anyone at this time, nor will I do so for the immediate period but in my opinion, the GOP the slogan for 2012 is ironically:

“it’s the Economy, Stupid”.

Wednesday, 2 November 2011


People have been asking me when the Republican nominee will be decided. See below the GOP 2012 Primary Schedule.

January 3, 2012

Iowa (caucus)

January 10, 2012

New Hampshire (primary)

January 21, 2012

South Carolina (primary)

January 31, 2012

Florida (primary)

February 4, 2012

Nevada (caucus)

February 4–11, 2012

Maine (caucus)

February 7, 2012

Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)

February 28, 2012

Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)

March 3, 2012

Washington (caucus)

March 6, 2012(Super Tuesday)

Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Texas (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)

March 6-10, 2012

Wyoming (caucus)

March 10, 2012

Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)

March 13, 2012

Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)

March 17, 2012

Missouri (caucus)

March 20, 2012

Illinois (primary)

March 24, 2012

Louisiana (primary)

April 3, 2012

Maryland (primary)
Washington, D.C. (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)

April 24, 2012

Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)

May 8, 2012

Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)

May 15, 2012

Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012

Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)

June 5, 2012

California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)

June 12, 2012

Ohio (primary)

June 26, 2012

Utah (primary)

Tuesday, 1 November 2011


We all know that there is a visible Anti-Semitic slant taking place at the Occupy Wall Street protests. (I am sure the Tea Party sympathisers would be swamped like the Titanic, if similar pictures came out from their rallies).

President Obama, thus far, has failed to condemn the Anti-Semitism on display at the Occupy Wall demonstrations.

He's on the record as saying:

"Obviously I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen it on television. I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel". So, yes, I think people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works".

Can the President be serious? Is he really saying that he empathises with this lot? Do you know what their grief is? I think that Obama and the Occupy lot have a lot in common. They both have no idea as to what they stand for!

Wouldn't it be nice to hear the following type of rhetoric from our President:

"I don't think those people demonstrating on Wall Street had the kind of parents that I had and that you had. I was asked by a reporter, well what do you think of the O[ccupy] Wall Street protesters? I said well, first of all, Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars, and it didn't work.
Wall Street isn't the cause of $450 billion more to put in the caboose of our economic train.
Wall Street didn't shove ObamaCare down our throats.
The problem with those protesters is that they ought to be over at the White House, not on Wall Street—that's not where the problem is.
Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks -- if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself,"

"It is not a person's fault because they succeeded; it is a person's fault if they failed".

Said by Herman Cain (GOP Candidate for President of United States)


Real Clear Politics poll of polls shows Obama with a 44% approval rating, a far cry from June 2009, when he was polling in the mid to high 60’s.

Yet there’s a real possibility that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012. Yes, his poll numbers are poor, yes the unemployment rate will stay around 8-9%, yes the deficit has increased under his watch (more than the previous 43 Presidents COMBINED!) and yes his HealthCare bill is unconstitutional and wildly ostracized. However, he has one thing in his favour; he has the office of the President of United States at his disposal. He can decide when to look Presidential; he can decide to issue an executive order, or, instruct someone to kill some terrorist in Afghanistan. In doing so, he can then divert the electorate’s attention from whatever the current ‘buzz’ is. It doesn’t accomplish much in the long run, but it does change news cycles during a campaign.

However Let’s Compare and Contrast:

“With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics -- we need more good ideas. We don't need more point-scoring -- we need more problem-solving”.

Barack Obama

“There is no limit to what a man can do, or where he can go, if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit”.

Ronald Reagan

I know one thing, if Obama adopted the Reagan quote / philosophy; we wouldn’t be in the mess that we find ourselves in today. If he did what Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s he would be a shoo-in for re-election.

After the mid-terms in 1994, the GOP took over the House of Representatives and proposed to enact fundamental reforms to the country. (President) Clinton originally vehemently detested the idea as it meant shrinking the size of government, promoting a lower tax rate, which is everything he was against. However, the GOP fought tooth and nail (including a shutdown of the government) to get these reforms in place. Eventually Clinton realised that if he didn’t move to the ‘right’, then he would be clobbered in the 1996 general elections. So, Clinton worked with the GOP to partially enact some of these reforms and largely took credit for them. Consequently he won re-election in 1996 by a huge margin, the GOP maintained their hold in Congress, but more importantly, the country was moving forward (until Lewinsky).

The same should have happened after the 2010 midterm elections. Obama had two years of his liberal agenda to do whatever he wanted, he focused on HealthCare, increased deficit spending, overregulation and income redistribution aka Socilasm. His doctrine was proving to be terrible; the unemployment rate skyrocketed, the deficit was increasing, markets collapsing throughout the world, banks failing and more and more people were distrusting him on the Economy. That apathy from the voters resulted in a huge midterm election defeat for the President. His party lost control of the House of Representatives and their majority in the Senate shrunk alarmingly.
After such a repudiation, you would expect the President to accept the will of the people and start working with the GOP leadership to get this Economy moving again. Alas that never happened, he hasn’t compromised on one thing. He is stubborn, played partisan politics and is largely the reason why there is continued gridlock in Washington DC. This makes his remarks all in the State of the Union (27th Jan 2010) all the more astounding:

"What the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life".

Yet In spite of all of his failings, he still has a reasonable shot of wining in 2012. Trying to dislodge an incumbent from office takes a lot of doing.
The focus of the electorate may change from now to Election day.
At the moment its all about the Economy but it could change instantly. Remember, (President) Bush 43 was struggling in the polls until Osama Bin Laden addressed the world, people then remembered about 9/11 and the dangers we faced and moved back into the Bush column.
McCain and Palin were up by 3 points against Obama until the financial meltdown in 2008.

We now have almost a year until the 2012 General Election. Obama and I will agree on this: 'it ain't over until it's over'.

Monday, 17 October 2011


The situation with the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap is one of the most heart-wrenching that we have had to encounter in a long time.

On the one hand; parents, family, friends and Army Colleagues would be joyous about the return of a captured comrade.

The other side is, at what price?

I know some of the family members of the victim’s and they are furious. They believe that their parents died in vain, if now, those terrorist are walking free.

This prisoner swap should not lure anyone into believing that they are "run of the mill" criminals. These people are animals who don’t deserve to be let into a farm, let alone civilian life. Think back to the Cafe Hillel bombing, Sbarro Pizza bombing and the Park Hotel Pesach bombs; to mention a few. The masterminds of those acts of inhumanity will roam free in days, return as heroes and will look to recommit other dastardly attacks in future.

Let’s focus on Gilad Shalit for a minute; Imagine the situation that he finds himself in, not even 20 years old, Isolated, no human rights, no medical attention, no telephone calls, in a cell that is probably only slightly bigger than his body with no sunlight. Something had to be done to rescue him from that hell.

When word broke of his intended release, I went to the Shalit tent in Jerusalem and we were dancing in celebration with hundreds of people. I was dancing that night, not because I thought it was a good deal, but because I shared the happiness that his parents were probably feeling at that moment and Shalit himself. They dropped their lives, protested outside the House of the Prime-Minister and travelled the world for 5 years to hasten the release of their dear son and finally, saw an end to that nightmare.

I often thought why the army had not taken action sooner into their own hands. My suggestion was to bring Shalit’s captivity to a swifter conclusion (much sooner than 2011)by carrying out a specialized operation in Gaza, to extract him and bring him home. (This would have been akin to the Navy Seal Unit that took out Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.) Now you could tell me that he would have been surrounded by suicide belts or explosives and would certainly have died? My answer to that is, yes, there are risks in every mission, but the “Raid on Entebbe” was completed effectively, in less time, with more people to release and in a distant land. Not to mention that Binyamin Netanyahu’s brother, Yoni, was killed during that operation (the only casualty during that most daring of operations). Also, we would surely have taken out high targets within Hamas and ended the suffering of the Shalit family in the process.
Bottom line, it would have sent one of the strongest messages to Hamas and the outside world, DONT MESS WITH US.

Since this exchange we are perceived as weak in the eyes of our own people and the rest of the world. Yes, 1,000 terrorists for one Jewish life shows the lack of sanctity of life within the Arab world but the value of life in the Jewish world. But it was 999 more than we should have allowed.
Giving away terrorists is the same flawed idea as land for peace; a total nightmare with disastrous implications that take years to recitfy.

The reality is that each and every one has to make up our own mind based on our own life positions. Whether we are mothers waiting for our child to come home, not knowing if they are dead or alive. Or are we the child that lost our parent to a murderer that is now walking free, or are we a country struggling by whatever means to keep our nation safe and alive. Who are we? And how can we judge?

Some will say it is an amazing deal and some will say it is a disaster which will usher in further terror.

Realistically it is an impossible question with no correct answer.

For the moment, we must be thankful that our boy is home and his suffering has ended. We must be more vigilant than ever before as I predict another wave of terror on the horizon. We must demand strong leadership, who knows what evil is, and are not afraid to call it by its true name and look to defeat it.

Friday, 2 September 2011


The GOP primary has heated up since the announcement that the Governor of Texas; Rick Perry finally ended speculation on the 13th August 2011, in South Carolina, and officially announced his candidacy for President. In his speech that evening he said: “It’s time to get America working again… The change we seek will never emanate out of Washington, D.C. It will come from the windswept prairies of Middle America, the farms and factories across this great land, from the hearts and minds of the goodhearted Americans who will accept not a future that is less than our past…patriots who will not be consigned to a fate of less freedom in exchange for more government. We do not have to accept our current circumstances. We will change them. We are Americans.””

Governor Perry, a tremendously popular man in the ‘The Lone Star State’ was pushed into entering the race mainly by his wife and a persistent Political Action Committee, who spent months lobbying him to take the plunge. You can learn more about him and his campaign at

For months many people have been disappointed with the current crop of GOP candidates and many people are trying to push for more to come in. With the introduction of Perry, the whole race has been turned upside down. After the GOP Presidential Debate and Iowa Straw Caucus, Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race and Michelle Bachman raised her profile even further with a victory. Candidates on the periphery managed to keep their campaigns on track but there was no outstanding candidate. Mitt Romney was the front runner and looking sweet, in spite of his HealthCare issues. However with Perry in the race, it has magnified the race somewhat.
If you look at the latest Rasmussen Reports poll: Perry 29%, Romney 18%, Bachmann 13% this clearly shows that Perry is the front runner.

Whilst Perry is a formidable candidate, it’s way too early to suggest that he is ‘the man’. There are many months to go before the primaries start in February 2012 and who knows what could be unearthed by then. Remember in 2008, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were flying the polls in August / September and look at how that helped them.

What we do know is that Perry can champion a pro-growth agenda with fundamental lowering of taxes and spending. Since June 2009, more than 40 percent of all net new jobs in America have been created in Texas under his watch. That is an amazing record to champion and he certainly has the charisma to illustrate his record. Incidentally, he is a big supporter of Israel. Recently, Glenn Beck held an event called “Restoring Courage” in Israel. Many Governors endorsed or stayed away but Governor Perry sent this letter of endorsement for the event.

Unless Governor Chris Christie (New Jersey) jumps into the race, which I highly doubt, then it would appear that these are the two heavyweights.
Yes, Michelle Bachman has a large following but her unfavourable ratings amongst independents are high, not to mention Sarah Palin, who on September 6th is due to make a major announcement regarding her ambitions.
Many people believe that she shouldn’t run, I am part of that crowd; however it wouldn’t suprise me if she did take the plunge. What will that do the race if she does enter? It will cement Michelle Bachman into third place, she will have to spend needless capital trying to distance herself from Palin, rather than gunning for 1st place. Palin matches up the worst against Obama than any other top tier candidate, purely because the independents and moderate Democrats can’t see themselves working for her. What Sarah Palin needs is, time in office. Since she left Alaska, she has written two books and is a FOX News contributor, she has made an enormous amount of money, but her stature has lessend somewhat. She has taken her eye of the ball and has focused on the media rather than America.
If Romney or Perry, become President, she should get a role in the cabinet as energy secretary; her remit would be to move America to energy independence. She did a great job in Alaska in taking on ‘Big Oil’ and I feel if American’s see what good work she’s does in Government, then attitudes will change down the line.

So let’s presume that it is Romney vs. Perry, what are their tactics going to be?

For Perry, it will be the fact that Romney signed a HealthCare bill when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Obama used that as the guideline to the now infamous ObamaCare legislation. Perry will go on and on about the bill and just remind people and Romney about that bill. He will say that he was a one term governor who doesn’t really have what it takes to lead and he will mention that Romney recently praised ‘HillaryCare’. He will also mention that he is the one that has created the environment which created 40% of all jobs in America. He will say he did that through, Lowering Taxes, cutting spending and general revenue and making life easier for businesses large and small to prosper even in this economy with Obama.

For Romney, it is evident what he will do; he will champion his business experience, how he saves businesses from ruin and make them profitable, how he saved the 2002 Olympics, he will champion that the fact that he knows what it is like in the business world and what pracital things are needed to get them growing again and dealing with real people. He will bite against Perry, who he calls a ‘career politician’ who doesn’t have experience in business.

They’re both compelling arguments and time will only tell as to who can come out on top. It is clear though that America needs a President that is focused on making sure that the economy is growing, ending the uncertainty on regulation and taxes. America needs some common sense straight talk, an end to Teleprompters, smoke and mirrors and brinkmanship.

Rudy Giuliani said it best: “how can you ask someone to draw up a budget for the country, when he has never done a budget before in his life”. The Obama experiment has failed and the fact that he is announcing his ‘Jobs Plan’ for the country, in September 2011 when he was elected in November 2008, just proves how clueless he really is. The Obama Administration even indicated that the unemployment rate will stay at 9% into 2012, election year. I believe that when he says that, he is saying to every American, "tighten your belt for another year cause I ain’t gotta clue as to how to solve this problem".

This election is very much the GOP’s to lose.

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

The Obama White House Cleanses Israel from Website

I received an article (see below) written by Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard dated 9th August 2011.

Everyone should take note and educate others of what type of man Obama really is. He is no friend of Israel and is very much looking to cripple us. Yes, Obama speaks at AIPAC, proclaiming the importance of Israel having a secured border, but what you have to realise is that the devil is in the detail. He has no intention in helping Israel, he believe that Israel is root of all unrest in the Middle East and that they haven’t done enough to facilitate a peaceful resolution for those “helpless, innocent" Palestinians.
If previous statements about the 1967 borders and armistices lines haven’t awoken you to the fact about Obama, let these pictures prove to you his real beliefs.

Obama is a threat to Israel and can’t be allowed to serve for another 4 years in the White House.

White House Cleanses Israel from Website

At 3:22 p.m., I posted this photo of Vice President Joe Biden and Shimon Peres, with an accompanying caption that indicated it had been taken last year in Jerusalem, Israel:

The point of posting the photo was to show that, although the State Department refuses to say that Jerusalem is in Israel, even the White House website acknowledges this elementary truth (at least for Western Jerusalem, west of the 1949 armistic lines). But not any more. Within two hours of posting, the White House has apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel.

The caption now reads: "Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, March 9, 2010."

Monday, 8 August 2011


Everyone has heard what’s going on in the markets and talking about “Triple A Credit Rating’s” and “Downgraded”. Perhaps it would be a good idea to help you understand what that specifically means and how it affects you.

A credit ratings company helps investors decide how risky it is to invest money in a certain country.
As investment opportunities become more global and diverse, it is difficult to decide not only which companies but also which countries are good investment opportunities. There are advantages to investing in foreign markets, but the risks associated with sending money abroad are considerably higher than those associated with investing in your own domestic market.
It is important to gain insight into different investment environments but also to understand the risks and advantages these environments pose. Measuring the ability and willingness of an entity - which could be a person, a corporation, or a country - to keep its financial commitments or its debt, credit ratings are essential tools for helping you make some investment decisions.

There are three top agencies that deal in credit ratings for the investment world. These are: Moody's, Standard and Poor's (S&P's) and Fitch IBCA (known as "the big three").
Each of these agencies aims to provide a rating system to help investors determine the risk associated with investing in a specific company, investing instrument or market.

The ratings lie on a spectrum ranging between highest credit quality on one end and default or "junk" on the other. Long–term credit ratings are denoted with a letter: a triple A (AAA) is the highest credit quality, and C or D (depending on the agency issuing the rating) is the lowest or junk quality. Within this spectrum there are different degrees of each rating, which are, depending on the agency, sometimes denoted by a plus or negative sign or a number.

What has happened now and why does it affect you?

If you watch the news, you hear all the time about the Dow Jones Industrial Average and other averages like the S&P 500 or The Russel 2000. These are "market averages" designed to tell you how companies traded on the stock market are doing in general.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is simply the average value of 30 large, industrial stocks. Big companies like General Motors, Goodyear, IBM and Exxon are the kinds of companies that make up this index.
The thing to understand is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is nothing magic -- someone has chosen 30 companies and averaged their values together by following a specific formula. That's all it is.
There are all sorts of averages out there. The S&P 500 is the average value of 500 different large companies. The Russel 2000 tracks the average of 2,000 smaller companies. And there are others.
What these averages tell you is the general health of stock prices as a whole. If the economy is "doing well," then the prices of stocks as a group tend to rise. If it is "doing poorly," prices as a group tend to fall. The averages show you these tendencies in the market as a whole. If a specific stock is going down while the market as a whole is going up, that tells you something. Or if a stock is rising, but is rising faster or slower than the market as a whole, that tells you something as well.

Stocks in America have slumped for two straight weeks as manufacturing and consumer spending data showed the world’s largest economy is slowing. The S&P 500 rose as much as 1.5 percent in the first five minutes of trading on Aug. 5 as the Labor Department said American employers added more jobs than forecast in July and the unemployment rate fell for the first time in four months. The index turned lower on growing speculation that S&P was preparing to strip the U.S. of its AAA rating for the first time.

Then the S&P removed for the first time the triple-A rating the U.S. has held for 70 years, saying the budget deal recently brokered in Washington didn't do enough to address the gloomy outlook for America's finances. It downgraded long-term U.S. debt to AA+, a score that ranks below more than a dozen governments', including Liechtenstein's, and on par with Belgium's and New Zealand's.
S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." It also blamed the weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting.

I think the last sentence from S&P statement says it all: "It also blamed the weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting.
People crave consistency and stability. People need to know where you stand. It doesn’t matter what it is, if I will make my decision based on what I know and sincerely believe. The Obama Administration have revealed bold rhetoric but vague actions with regard to controlling the deficit. He says one thing to the union pals and another at a town hall meeting. people are confused, the markets are arguably all over the place because of that. The only thing that he has done is continue to spend money that they don't have and get a nationwide Health Care system in place that no-one likes, is expensive and lowers the quality of care to patients. Now, with the S&P downgrade and Moody’s to follow, the cost of borrowing will become more, which will naturally trickle down to the oridanry folks. this means that gas prices will be higher, insurance will be higher and getting a loan will be that much more expensive.

A lot of people are asking us what can be done to sort this problem out.

My solution is, get the American juggernaut rolling again by incentives. How do you do that, deregulate areas that could hinder entrepreneurs, slash your fiscal spending, repeal ObamaCare which will add to the deficit, freeze all entitlements (including job seekers allowance) to anyone other than the disabled and the veterans. Ensure that every taxpayer pays a flat rate tax which won’t increase for 5 years and won’t exceed 28% of what they earn. Cut the corporate tax rate, cut the income tax at make sure that it is stable for the next 5 years. The Congress should put together a budget that will guarantee that the budget is balanced within 8 years and continues to do so each year after that.

You may ask, if you are cutting every tax how are you going to earn enough to service the debt that you currently have, when you are not even raising taxes?

The answer is simple, lowering taxes means having more people in the system that are eligible to pay taxes. You will see a huge influx of new revenue once this is enacted. If you raise taxes, a small company won’t be able to hire another person, who in turn will start paying money into the system, etc etc.

People are saying that the credit downgrade is the end of the American Dream...I don't believe so, not for one minute.
If we keep electing the likes of Obama then we are in for more trouble but the American people are dynamic, capitalistic and hungry and they will not sit back and see their country collapse and further liberties take from them. look at the Tea Party and see what happens when individuals come together and take on the establishment.
I have no doubt that the job of sorting out the debt in America will be solved. It won’t happen under Obama with his labor union buddies, it will happen under a different President that cares about its future, who will proclaim that the "American Dream" is very much alive and kicking.

Wednesday, 13 July 2011


“Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has announced that it is dropping its planned bid to take full ownership of satellite broadcaster BSkyB”.

Certainly (Ed) Milliband and the BBC will be sleeping well in their TUC laid bed’s this evening.
Milliband was the first person to stand up and call for an end to the Murdoch bid and he will be lauded in front of the press for his ‘bold actions’ and 'direct rhetoric' against the 'Evil Satan' that is Rupert Murdoch. In the next few days, weeks and months you will hear comments from Liberals, Socialist’s and other talking heads from the BBC and the Guardian proclaiming that the Murdoch empire is ‘collapsing’, ‘dead’ or ‘on life support’.

However lets go to the crux of the matter and discuss the main objection to the BskyB takeover.
The concern was that the takeover will strengthen Mr Murdoch’s grip on the industry and distort competition. The people like Milliband, Daily Mirror publisher Trinity Mirror, BT, Guardian Media Group, Associated Newspapers, Northcliffe Media and Telegraph Media Group are all institutions that are desperate to cling to power. The narrative of the UK media is slanted sharply to the left and it has been like that for years.

Folks, do not get sucked in to this idea that the Murdoch takeover is a bad thing for the country nor the fact that his empire is crumbling from within. The dinosaurs in the media will make you think that and use every means necessary to create that myth.

Bottom line what are people really worried about with regard to Murdoch and the bid?

Enter FOX NEWS..............

Fox in America (was created by Rupert Murdoch)has exploded and taken the media by storm. Their ratings are through the roof because their only agenda is to report and let the viewer decide based on the mantra of being ‘Fair & Balanced’. Competing stations, such as ABC, MSNBC, CNN & NBC which for years were top of the charts and providing ‘news’ to millions of Americans have been blown out of the water and are now struggling to stay afloat in the face of FOX.
Milliband and the BBC are frightened to death of such a force in the British Media. This country is yearning for an equivalent to Fox News, one which will see through the lies, corruption and double standards of our public figures and mainstream media. This country is desperate for some real competition.
A broadcaster who is in sync with the silent, common sense majority of the British Public. One that will provide real news without an agenda, Murdoch has a history of providing that with this companies.
"Fox News UK" should base itself around the quote: "the truth has no agenda".

Until that day comes my friend, let Ed Milliband and his cohorts sit proudly and proclaim whatever they want, but let me make a bold prediction. Sometime in the next 12 months we will hear a story about Ed or his Labour Shadow Cabinet which will force him to step down or make him even more unelectable than Gordon Brown was.

What’s more, during that media fire-storm News Corporation will be back in with another
offer for BskyB which will ultimately be approved by the Government and finally their will be some competition in British Media.

Rupert Murdoch is one of the most powerful and influential people in the world today. Ed Milliband may regret the day that he made such an enemy out of him.

Milliband may have won the battle but ultimately, Murdoch will win the war.

Monday, 11 July 2011

The Race for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

For the last few months almost everyone who has come up to me has asked: "well.......who can beat Obama? The guy is invincible and won’t be beaten in 2012".
It’s a good question and one that stirs alot of debate whenever I answer the question.

Firstly, there are a number of folks that have put their names down for the GOP nomination so far. I would like to give you a small bio of whom each of these (only serious) people are (in no particular order):

Rick Santorum: Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 at the age of 32, and from 1995 to 2007, served in the US Senate. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman. Learn more at

Michelle Bachman: Elected in 2006, Michele is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. Prior to serving in the U.S. Congress, Michele was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000 where she championed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Before that, she spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on hundreds of civil and criminal cases. Michele has five children has 23 foster children. Learn more at

Herman Cain: originally from Atlanta Georgia, Cain hasn’t spent a day in Congress and isn’t considered an insider politician. Former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a company that was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. In just 14 months, Herman returned Godfather’s to profitability and he led his management team to a buyout of the company. Learn more at

Ron Paul: As a specialist in obstetrics/gynaecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies.
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. Learn more at

Mitt Romney: he was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, (Romney) cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes. By 2007, at the end of Mitt’s term, the state had accumulated a $2 billion rainy day fund in its coffers. This stringent fiscal discipline provided an essential backdrop for economic recovery. When Mitt came into office, the state was losing jobs every month. When he left office, the economy was generating new jobs by the thousands. He is widely known as the man that salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympic Games from certain disaster. Learn more at

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is the architect of the “Contract with America” that led the Republican Party to victory in 1994 by capturing the majority in the U.S. House for the first time in forty years. He was elected to Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1994. Under Newt’s leadership, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation, leading to the repayment of over $400 billion in debt. Congress also cut taxes for the first time in sixteen years and reformed welfare, leading to over sixty percent of welfare recipients either getting a job or going to school. In addition, the Congress restored funding to strengthen our defence and intelligence capabilities, an action later lauded by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Newt is the author of twenty-three books, including thirteen New York Times bestsellers. Learn more at

Jon Hunstman: the former Utah governor. In 2007 as Governor undertook major tax reform, signing into law the largest tax cut in Utah’s history. He simplified Utah’s tax structure and passed more than $400 million in tax cuts, including a flat tax on income, and substantially reduced the sales tax on food. Thousands of jobs are created and many major companies relocate or expand in Utah, drawn to the business-friendly environment. Asked by President Obama to serve America, Jon Huntsman was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Ambassador to China. He recently resigned and put his name in the ring to run for President. Learn more at

Tim Pawlenty: elected to governor of Minnesota in 2002. During his two terms as Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty used innovative and conservative leadership to balance the state’s budget, cut spending, reform health care and improve schools without raising taxes. Under his leadership, Minnesota had nation-leading health care, the highest school test scores, and a leading economy. In September 2010, the fiscally conservative Cato Institute gave Governor Pawlenty an A grade for his fiscal management. Learn more at

Those are the people that so far have put their hat in the ring and have actually set out committee’s to become a candidate. There are a number of people on the periphery who may enter the race at a later stage, some of the list have flatly rebuffed approaches. These vary from Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry or even....Donald Trump. In future articles we will discuss the viability of these people and their chances in the primaries.

What makes this election so intriguing is that there is a genuine cry for some Hope and Change. Sorry for using the Obama 2008 slogan but really the guy has been one of the biggest let downs in history. The economy is sliding into a double dip recession, the dollar is at its weakest since I don’t know when, gas prices are going through the roof, his healthcare law is so ‘popular’ that he is offering waivers to opponents to agree to his budgets, the debt has increased dramatically since the anointed one took office and more devastatingly, the unemployment rate is over 9%. Quite amazingly Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that "many Americans will face hard times for a long time to come". This to me, is the modern day equivalent to Jimmy Carter’s statement to 'turn- down-the-thermostat' during the 1970’s energy crisis. America have never just accepted something, there is always another way out, a better way. So when people ask me who can beat Obama, based on the above, please ask me what is so difficult to beat?

This election will be exciting and don't think for one second that Obama is unbeatable. The demographics can’t be the same as 2008. Yes, the African-American turnout will be massive for Obama but what you have to realise is that the GOP will be putting forward a candidate with a clear message that every voter will be able to understand. McCain is a great American and true patriot but he was inept when it came to articulating a message. I challenge you to put together in two sentences what the McCain message was in 2008. Politics is all about compare and contrast. The Economy is the key to the 2012 election.
Whoever can fashion the clearest message about recovery will win. Also in the coming weeks I will tell you who I believe should be the Vice Presidential nominee for the GOP regardless of who the Presidential Nominee is.

Monday, 2 May 2011


The capture and killing of Usama Bin Laden (UBL) is a massive coup for the Obama administration and more importantly for the American people. Rightfully so, Obama will make the most of this and you will see his poll numbers increase as a result. Usama Bin Laden was an evil terrorist, who epitomised radical and fundamental Islam.

What people shouldn’t start thinking is that the ‘War on Terror’ is suddenly over as a result of this killing.
UBL, as result of the pressure of the largest
man hunt in history, was running, hiding and limited to a few videos every year denouncing America and the infidels. What has happened since September 11th 2001 is that the network Al -Qaeda has carried out attacks and I believe will continue to do so in spite of his death.

If anyone tells you that his death will spell the end of violence throughout the world are dangerously out of their depth and need to be educated.
Do you think that airports will no longer have strict security? Will the immigration system fundamentally change throughout Europe, allowing anyone to enter countries regardless of their radical views and associations? Will Jews be able to travel freely to places such as Iran, Syria, and Malaysia without the threats of harassment, violence and deportation? Will the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq finally cease? Will we see Iran putting down their weapons and form a peace deal with Israel and the West?

The answer to all those questions is a fundamental NO!

Radical Islam still has its mission to infiltrate and overpower every nation in the world. If they can’t destroy via demographic means (higher birth-rate), then they will attempt to change the demographics by annihilating the infidels through terrorist attacks.
The world is very much the same as it was 24 hours ago when they were still chasing UBL. We need to be vigilant, ahead of the game and looking to break up future terrorist attacks before they kill more innocent civilians. We need to ensure that the leaders we have in place, totally understand what is at stake and if they don’t think that Radical Islam is such a threat then we need to replace them with people that do.

Many people will now think that Obama is a shoe-in for re-election in 2012.

Killing UBL will certainly help his numbers and no one can take that away from him.
Nonetheless, ask yourself these questions:
Will the killing of UBL lower the price of Gas at the pump? It is not over $4 per gallon and it doesn’t look like it will go down anytime soon.
Will the killing of UBL provide 9% of the unemployed people of America a job?
Will the killing of UBL reduce the debt anytime soon?
Will the killing of UBL reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

People will be on high as a result of this amazing news but reality will rear its head once again and people, Americans have short memories in life and they will draw their attention to other things that matter as much to them.

For now, my thoughts are with the family of the victims of 9/11. Whilst nothing can ever be done to bring their loved ones back, at some level, justice has finally been served.

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Hillary 2012!!!!!!

Many people say that this is Obama's election for the taking. If you look at all of the potential contenders from the GOP's perspective it does seem like they don't garner much excitement.

Pundits from MSNBC, ABC News, Juan Williams and other bleeding heart liberals fervently believe that since no viable ‘GOPite’ has come to the forefront already, it has to be because they're ‘scared of Obama’. They believe that Obama is sooo popular and still earns the support of the entire nation that there really isn't any point in running against him.

I prefer to be the optimistic one here and have a certain school of thought here.

I believe that the likes of Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour and the rest of the gang are saving up their money for the later primaries with a view to spending big for the fall campaign. Remember John McCain in 2007? He started so early that he went bankrupt just before New Hampshire and only stayed in the race after he won the primary race and bagged a whole load of cash as a result to stay afloat.

The GOP, I believe are playing it smart. The bottom line is beating Obama in 2012 not beating everyone silly in the primary and being dead on arrival at the start of the presidential campaign.

What Barack Obama may have to take into consideration is a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I believe still covets his job like a druggie needing his next fix. Remember that Hillary was always the ‘next in line’. It was always going to be her in 2008, until Obama came in and grabbed it away from her.
I think she still has the ambition to be President. I don't think that you just lose that ambition overnight. Yes she is the Secretary of State, but she is actually doing that to stay active and in the minds of the electorate.

Once the GOP field starts to narrow and it becomes clearer as to who they will nominate, you will see Obama’s poll numbers dramatically dipping as there will be a clear compare and contrast; this will force Hillary to join the game in the summer and mount a primary challenge to Obama.

If the GOP gets the White House in 2012 it could be as dramatic as Ronald Wilson Reagan in the 1980's. The Democrats didn't get the Presidency back until 1992 with Bill Clinton, a whole 12 years later!
I believe that Hillary desperately wants another nibble of that cookie and will do whatever it takes to get it.

Watch this space folks.....


So the election of 2012 has officially begun....President Barack Obama posted a video on the internet which declared his intention on seeking re-election in November 2012.

Look, it’s no surprise that he is running for a second term, but to do so at the sharp end of a potential Government Shutdown??? What abysmal timing!!!!

The GOP in the House of Representatives are proposing to cut $61 billion dollars from a $3 Trillion dollar budget to keep the Government operational. As you would expect Obama doesn't like that and is insisting that the Democrats in the Senate, lead by Harry Reid, (Nevada) stand firm and resist the cuts to his ‘holy socialised’, union run, ‘pork barrelled’, ‘anti business’ budget. A government shutdown is avoidable but it will most likely happen this Friday or, if not, a few weeks from now. This will consequently highlight Obama’s lack of leadership and his chronic inability to find common ground with the GOP on such a small percentage of the budget.
This I believe will set the tone for the election of 2012 in America. Obama hasn’t changed the way Washington does business. He is perceived as weak, in bed with Unions, Special Interests, 60’s Radicals and Anti Semites.

I hope that Obama's advisors continue what they're doing. The re-election announcement had ZERO thought to the current situation whatsoever. I highly doubt his campaign, regardless of the billions shovelled from Soros, SEIU and other Anti-Capitalist organisations; will be as thoughtful in the coming 20 months.


You will remember that on week one of the anointed one's coronation into Washington DC, he proclaimed that Guantanamo Bay will be shut within a year. In 365 days the supposed ‘black eye’ of American foreign policy will be no longer.

I'm not saying it’s what propelled him to office in 2008 but it was a significant tool with which to bash McCain and the GOP and to also excite the boisterous anti Bush liberals into voting for him.

Well.... We've just learned that United States Attorney General, Eric Holder will now try the 9/11 co-conspirators, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad (KSM) in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is a massive reversal for the Obama administration. What the ‘appeaser in chief‘, actually wanted to do was to try KSM and his pals in lower Manhattan next to 'ground zero'.
On top of that, last year he said he wouldn't stand in the way of the so called 'ground zero mosque' being built blocks away from ground zero where 3,000 people died on September 11th 2001. Talk about a slap on the face for all the victims families. Does the man have any compassion. 9/11 wasn't something that happened a century ago, it is still fresh in the mind of all of America.

Take what he has done with the 'ObamaCare', Wall Street bailouts, his woeful foreign policy (look at Libya, he is now arming al-Qaeda), his pressuring of allies such as Israel, his alliance with the socialist revolutionary unions, trillion dollar deficits, run away spending, pro government–anti small business ideology.
The picture that is suddenly appearing is that the only thing that is a black eye on America is one,
Barack Hussein Obama!!!

Wednesday, 30 March 2011


“In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners”.

Remarks by President Barack Obama in Address to the Nation on Libya at the National Defence University, Washington, D.C. March 28, 2011

Note the words “prevent a massacre” in an excerpt of that speech.

Is that the Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine? Is that what guides his moral compass when it comes to making decisions, such as Libya?

If I was in a room and could ask Obama any question it would be: ‘what about Darfur? Is there no massacre going on there?’
"Self-defence militias" ordered by Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, ride into villages on horses and camels, slaughter men, rape women and steal whatever they could find. According to estimates 300,000 people have died since 2007 and an estimated 2.7m people have left since the conflict began.

Mr President, surely, based on your mission statement of preventing a massacre in Libya, you should be deploying the same to the Sudan?

What about China?
Human rights groups have documented an increasing number of arrests of Chinese Christians since the beginning of 2004. According to the charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide, persecution is becoming more systematic and targeted at large-scale Christian gatherings. Since June the charity has documented three mass arrests of unregistered Christians. In each case more than 100 people were detained. Amnesty International has reported many cases of detained church leaders in recent years, especially in the provinces of Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Hebei.
One of the most high-profile cases is that of Gong Shengliang, head of the South China Church, who was sentenced to death in 2001. His sentence was commuted to a prison term, but Amnesty has received reports that he has been severely tortured in jail.
In August three Christians were sentenced to jail terms for passing information to foreign governments, and in July state media reported that a woman had been beaten to death after being arrested for handing out bibles.
"They hung me up across an iron gate, then they yanked open the gate and my whole body lifted until my chest nearly split in two. I hung like that for four hours."
That is how Peter Xu Yongze, the founder of one of the largest religious movements in China, described his treatment during one of five jail sentences on account of his belief in Christianity.

Surely Mr President you would considering this a form of a massacre against Christians? Surely you believe that restrictions of the right to worship are intolerable and needs to be ceased by any means at your vast disposal.

If I maybe so forward, Mr President, I don't think for one minute that you believe what you are saying about Libya. I believe that you wouldn’t mind if Libya continued under Muammar Gaddafi. Louis Farrakhan who is the Nation of Islam Leader and an unrepentant Anti Semite, who also happens to be the best buddy of Obama’s spiritual advisor of 20 years, Reverend. Jeremiah Wright, said to Obama “Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world”. “Because they don’t want a Black face in the White House”. Furthermore, it is well known that three women have literary persuaded Obama to get involved with Libya. They are:
Hillary Clinton - US. Secretary of State
Stephanie Powers - White House consultant, and
Susan Rice – US ambassador to United Nations.

I think that if Obama really believed what he was saying about Libya and the mission, he would have said that the objective was to remove Gaddafi. Surely that is what is necessary to stop the bloodshed.

What is happening now in world politics is that the American people are fighting a war to save European oil wells in Libya - Have a look at the picture below which tells its own story.

Horrified of their oil and the ensuing chaos with further increased prices at the pump in a deep recession in their countries, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy are running the table in spite of Obama. Consequently this makes Obama come across as weak in the eyes of Clinton, Powers and Rice, hence his intervention into the issue of Libya.

The President should stand up right now and proclaim that Gaddafi must be removed from power without delay; he should deploy the full resources of the American government to topple his brutal dictatorship by any means necessary. Until he does that this mission in Libya looks pathetic and will certainly go on and on for some time.