Thursday, 19 December 2013


If someone came up to you and said that a specific individual was the Messiah, you would either run away or have that person committed to a mental asylum. 

We all do it. When you see preachers on the streets depicting 'the end of the world' we don't take them seriously at all.

So when you have a veteran journalist, Barbara Walters on Piers Morgan Tonight saying:
We thought that he [Obama] was going to be - I shouldn't say this at Christmastime, but the next messiah!

then she would need to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
If you ever needed proof that the mainstream media had a love in with Barack Hussein Obama, then that line from Walters is it.
Nobody hates the Messiah and certainly nobody would have the audacity to question the so called ‘anointed one’. That would be blasphemous to the highest degree. By thinking he was Messiah, the media including CNN, NBC & MSNBC were somehow justifying their laissez-faire attitude to his administration. From ‘shovel ready’ jobs to ObamaCare through Benghazi – never have the media held him accountable.
Little wonder as to why 56% of Americans polled, distrust the mainstream media!!

Monday, 28 October 2013


A genuinely moving report on Dr. Charles Krauthammer. A must watch and share.
He has just penned a new book called Things That Matter which I urge you to buy.

Thursday, 24 October 2013


Following the recent partial government shutdown, the GOP were ridiculed by the mainstream media and establishment lawmakers for their actions. Since the deal arranged by the establishment parties in Congress, the media have called it a victory for Obama and ObamaCare.

The question that needs to be asked is this: 
The government shutdown has ended… what next for the GOP?
The answer lies in The Heritage Foundation and their findings from a study called: How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchanges? 

It portrays a sorry tale for the millions of Americans being affected by ObamaCare and the increased premiums which they will have to pay for. 
Correct, ObamaCare was upheld in the Supreme Court and was endorsed with Obama’s election back in 2012. But that shouldn't mean that we can’t take this battle to the ‘court of public opinion’.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has said that the only way to defund or remove ObamaCare is by getting a majority in Congress and by taking the White House. That is the clear agenda for the GOP but the question is to how can that be done. 
The GOP is united in their ultimate goal, the problem is how to get to that place and that is where you have McCain vs. Cruz and Graham vs. Lee.

Here is a winning strategy:

Assume the GOP retains their majority in the House; there are 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014. Of those seats, 13 are currently held by Republicans and 20 are held by Democrats. The Democrats hold the majority with 54 seats to the GOP’s 46.

The GOP has the hand that can do this; all they need to do is play it smart. The key is ObamaCare and not the way they have been playing it till now.
There are 376 days until the midterm elections. Each day, the GOP should place and ad, call a press conference, a prime-time interview or a YouTube clip with members of the public actually being affected by ObamaCare and the higher premiums.

  •          Take the family of four from Virginia who will see their insurance go up by 178%!!! Interview them, ask them to explain as to how they are going to have to cut back or have lost their jobs.
  •          Speak with the 50 year old from Texas who will have to fork out 91.2% each year towards their insurance premiums as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
  •          Have a chat with the 27 year old and the so-called ‘invincible’, who will see an increase of 168.3% on their premiums.

Each and every day until November 2014, the GOP including the RNC should be buying out ad times in newspapers, radio station’s, television networks and in heavily DNC districts and bringing to the people the real impacts of Obama’s signature legislation.

The idea is to drip feed the real effect of ObamaCare to the American people, so even the layman in the street, who couldn't care about politics, is aware of the mess which is ObamaCare and who is to blame.

Each day, the GOP members, including Senators and Representatives should continuously refer to the specific name of the family or individual of the day.
When giving an interview to FOX, CNN or MSNBC – they must mention the name of that person and personalize the issue. 
When Sen.Ted Cruz says that ‘I am standing up for the millions of Americans’; I am sure he feels he is, but it just doesn't resonate as much as referring to a human being, a real case which you can visualize and empathize with.

If the GOP is really serious about taking back Congress and in turn with that, totally blunting Obama and his fundamental transformation of America this is the silver bullet.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013


George Galloway is a vile human being. I wrote the following article about him back in June 2013. He informed the world that he may wish to run for Mayor of London in 2016. If that article hasn't convinced you, perhaps this one will. 

See the following 2 minute video from the Oxford Union debating society:

He was able to claim that Israel is fascist state all because the English Defense League (EDL), used an Israeli flag at a recent demonstration. 
What he neglected to mention was that the Israeli embassy had condemned the use of the flag and asked that it not be used by the EDL. 

Let's adopt the Galloway logic in this case. If Israel is fascist state solely because a fascist group like the EDL used it's flag, then we must apply it equally. 

He used to work for Press TV which is an Iranian State broadcaster. The program is shown in the UK. 

Due to his association with Iran and the 'Mullahocracy'; he must surely be homophobic. 

A Human Rights Watch study brought up the issue of the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community within Iran. According to the report {LGBT's} are also targets of discrimination. 
Iranians suspected of being gay face societal abuses, acts of violence and constant pressure. Citing a Human Rights Watch study, the report found that “family members threatened and abused many young gay men, who also faced harassment from religious scholars, schools, and community elders.” Again, security forces monitor the internet to collect information on members and supporters of the LGBT community. 

Former President, Mahmud Ahmadinejad is on record as saying : "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country (USA)... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

George Galloway surely has to be condemned for such associations which are reprehensible. Why the Oxford Union keep inviting him back, only they can tell you!!!

University campuses claim to champion pluralistic values - by inviting vile, hateful people like George Galloway back to such events, it will only go onto make these institutions more out of touch then they already are.    

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Netanyahu Responds to Abbas’s Praise of Hitler’s Mufti

I had to post this article which was forwarded to me. Why do we have to get in bed with these vile animals!
Well done David Bedein, good work!

Posted By David Bedein On October 7, 2013 @ 12:10 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage 

On January 4, 2013, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke via video link on a wide screen to the masses in Gaza, who gathered to celebrate the founding of Fatah (Arabic word for “conquest”),  otherwise known as the Palestine Liberation Organization.
In his New Year’s speech, Abbas spoke glowingly of the legacy of the Godfather of the PLO, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Muhammad Amin Al-Husseini, who during the 1920′s and 1930’s instigated pogroms against the Jews of Palestine and who during his residence in Nazi Germany actively plotted a Final Solution to be carried out once his German allies would win the war.
Abbas praised the Mufti as a man whose ways should be emulated by all Palestinian Arabs.
“We must remember the pioneers, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Hajj Muhammad Amin Al-Husseini, as well as Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, the founder of the PLO,” Abbas said, according to a translation of the speech made by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

At the time, our agency asked Israeli President Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu for comment on the Mufti’s praise of Hitler’s ally. Since the Israeli government is on record as defining Abbas as a partner for peace, one would have expected a response which expressed horror and revulsion.

Instead, there was silence from the highest officials of the Israeli government.
Peres’s office said that there would be no response. Netanyahu’s office said that there would be a response, in due time.

Nine months after the Abbas praise of the Mufti, on Oct. 6, 2013, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu chose the venue of a policy speech at Bar Ilan University to respond to the emulation lauded on the Mufti by Abbas and by the official curriculum of the Palestinian Authority.

Israel’s Prime Minister quoted the protocols of the Hitler-Mufti pact, presented as evidence against the Mufti in the Nuremberg war crimes trials. The records of the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti explicitly state that Hitler would exterminate the Jews in Europe, while the Mufti would enlist Nazi aid to exterminate Jews in Palestine, so as to establish a “JudenRein” state of Palestine.
To that end, the Mufti ensconced himself in Hitler’s bunker, from where he recruited an Islamic unit of the Waffen SS, which actively engaged in the mass murder of Jews, while issuing Arabic language appeals on Nazi radio that incited Moslems to join the Nazi cause and to prepare for mass murder of Jews in Palestine.

The Protocols of the Nuremberg trials concerning the Mufti were published in a 1946 book, titled “Mufti of Jerusalem,” authored by journalist Maurice Pearlman, who was appointed in 1948 by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, as the first director of the Israel Government Press Office.
Pearlman reported that the refusal of the British government to arrest the Mufti in Cairo caused the head of the Zionist revisionists in the United States at the time, Ben Zion Netanyahu, the late father of Israel’s current Prime Minister, to launch an unsuccessful campaign to push the US to demand the arrest of the Mufti in Cairo.

In his Bar Ilan speech, Netanyahu cited affidavits of senior SS prosecution witnesses who testified that the Mufti, working directly under Eichmann and Himmler, identified the Mufti’s instrumental role in making sure that millions of Jews were murdered, and not ransomed.
Netanyahu referred to the affidavit of one of Eichmann’s subordinates, SS Hampsturmfuerer Dieter Wisliceny, who appeared as a witness for the Nuremberg prosecution, where the Nazi officer testified that,
The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry for the Germans and had been the permanent collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan…According to my opinion, the Grand Mufti, who had been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded, He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with who had been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures…

Discussion of the Mufti’s role in the extermination of the Jews has been downplayed for years by Israeli officials, who were hesitant to attack the George Washington of the PLO. Perhaps that would spoil the moderate image of the PLO as a peace partner.

Now Israel’s Prime Minister has placed the Mufti’s legacy on the agenda.
A little known fact concerns the Mufti’s special relationship with a young relative in Cairo, to whom the Mufti would affectionately give the name “Yassir Arafat.” In December 1996, Haaretz interviewed Yassir Arafat’s younger brother and sister, who said that the Mufti performed the role of a surrogate father figure and mentor to the young Arafat.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s erudite reference to the Mufti’s role in the mass murder of Jews in World War II was not lost on pundits who followed every word of his speech. After all, that mass murder of Jews is currently taught in Palestinian Authority schools in accordance with Abbas’s 1983 doctoral thesis at the University of Moscow, which concludes that the World Zionist Organization, not the Nazi party, was responsible for the destruction of European Jewry.

I have written about the Mufti before and it is vital that we question our so-called partners in peace. 

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Why does Obama not want child cancer sufferers' to receive vital treatment?

When Obama talked about his sequestration proposal (automatic budget cuts) and the effects of a government shutdown, he really looks and sounds terrible.

Presidents can have a sombre mood when it comes to facing a big issue or a major tragedy but the idea is that America is a can do nation for example:

·         FDR after Pearl Harbour – sombre but resilient.
·         George Bush after 9/11 reflective, yet unyielding.

On Sequester, Obama gave news conference after news conference trying to describe the effects of such a drastic cut in spending. No (decent) President will ever talk down to the American people nor portray a doomsday scenario – unless it is genuine.
Obama has a habit of doing this. Whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, he cries wolf to a usually adoring media, who will lap it up and replay his plea constantly to the public at large.

When the Sequester happened, the automatic cuts came in and everything is running normally or not out of the ordinary. Essentially Obama was defeated. He tried to diminish the American spirit to achieve a Congressional victory and failed.

We now turn to the partial government shutdown and that fact that 87% of the government is running ordinarily.
Obama, as with Sequester, knowing that only 15% of the government is out of action, is at it again. Yet in this case, he has changed his tactics from last time.  Now, he is actively closing monuments and memorials such as the WWII monument in Washington, D.C. -even when he has no right to do so. In that instance, Obama ordered that a chainlink fence be erected around the World War II Memorial denying anyone in. Subsequently the Veterans turned back the years, stormed the memorial, retook control and sang Amazing Grace!! That is the American spirit!

He has ordered his Democrat colleagues not to restart the government unless the whole Continuing Resolution is agreed between all parties.

If the attack on the Veterans wasn’t distasteful enough from our President, then let us have a look at how he wishes to treat children suffering with cancer.
Barack Obama has instructed the National Institute of Health (NIH) that they can’t start any new testing of anything – until the CR is approved. He still says this even though the NIH offers children with cancer lastchance experimental treatment.

As soon as the Republicans found out about it, they offered to pass a bill to fund the NIH so the kids may have a chance of survival. The President said he will veto the GOP bill it if it gets to his desk.

The GOP is not blameless here. The United States Government, including Obama are all disconnected from the American people. But when you look at the bold facts here, knowing that negotiating will take a while, don’t you just want to take whatever you can get here, Mr President?

If Government is vital, each component essential to the running of the country, why not take a 3% of what you can get now.

On Gun Control, Obama said that if his (now failed) legislation and executive orders save just one life it would be worth it. Why can’t you apply the same principle here with children suffering from cancer? Are you willing to stand in the way and possibly see a child die from this heatless disease, just to make a political point?    

My question is: 

Why does Obama not want child cancer sufferers' to receive vital treatment? 

Sunday, 6 October 2013


Most know the political angle and how it was rammed through a Democrat super-majority in Congress, but the essential question is whether ObamaCare is a good law or not? When I say good law, I mean will it:

a) Increase the insured, b) lower premiums and c) improve the quality of care.

a)    What ObamaCare certainly does is increase the insured. By aggressively expanding Medicaid eligibility at a subsidized rate it will bring millions into the system and giving them an opportunity for coverage.  

b)    It simply cannot lower premiums. The way ObamaCare was designed was to refuse insurance companies from rejecting people due to a pre-existing injury. ObamaCare also requires additional benefits to be offered regardless of the applicant(s). This range from: No Pre-existing conditions rejections, to, no caps on annual benefits.  When you have such a list of benefits that need to be added to a policy, the premiums will naturally skyrocket.

c)    The idea of improving quality of care comes when you have the ability to heal the sick. The people that do that are doctors and they are scathing about ObamaCare. A survey was done in 2010 by the Physicians Foundation in which 4 out of 10 were dissatisfied with the law and indicated that they would leave the profession, rather than treat the expanded Medicaid roll. There is already a doctor’s shortage and the idea of ObamaCare fully implemented will make things worse as the ratio of doctors to patients will grow rapidly and worsen the quality of care.

The women in the below video is Dr. Barbara Beller. She is from Illinois and is running for District 17, Cook County. Sometime it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of how ObamaCare was formed into law.   

Sunday, 29 September 2013




After a spirited debate with an ardent liberal, what I found rather amusing and later infuriating is how misinformed they were about the the issue of the U.S. debt.

What Liberals will lead you to believe (maybe just the one who I debated) is that George W.Bush is the sole reason for the trillions of debt that America find themselves in. 

However.....Obama has raised the deficit at a higher rate than Bush!
To be precise, during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion. Obama can take credit for over $6 trillion! The debt Bush inherited from Bill Clinton was $5.7 trillion!

The Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department posted its daily debt report showing the total public debt of the U.S. government is now $16,746,883,563,368  $16.746 trillion. 

Facts are stubborn things!

Thursday, 19 September 2013

Will Hillary Clinton run in 2016?

She will naturally tout that she was Secretary of State for four years and was the most travelled Secretary in the history of the country. That may well be true but she had zero achievements or any substantive diplomatic victories (other than Burma) which she can lay claim for.
There will be a few who will say that she was repairing the damage left by her predecessor and George W. Bush and that is an achievement enough.

That is nice political response but you only say that when you haven’t an argument to forge.
The facts are simple, she failed.

She deserves as much credit for her service in the State Department as Obama does for his Nobel Peace Prize.

After weeks into his job, John Kerry was able to get the Israel & Palestinians – peace process moving forward. Granted it isn’t going to lead to anything but what is simple, is that Hillary never got close to getting that done. Was she incompetent or inept?  

She can’t take credit for Iraq & Afghanistan as Back in 2008, Obama inherited a solid situation. With the execution of the surge, President Bush had essentially decimated Al-Qaeda and the uprising. The Bush 43 administration had signed a U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement on 16th November 2008 which called for the pull out of US troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of US military presence in country. 
She really didn't have to do anything other than watch her primary opponent take the (undeserved) credit and administer the phased withdrawal. 

On Iran they are closer to delivering a nuclear bomb. She wasn’t able to neither make any progress nor even sit down with any of the mullahs. The same with North Korea the only difference is that she allowed former NBA basketball star, Dennis Rodman to head a diplomatic mission to the Pyongyang.

The situation with Egypt her support for the Muslim Brotherhood will be remembered as the day in which America finally allowed murderous thugs to overrun a relatively peaceful country. 

The two areas which will kill her will be Syria and Libya.

On Syria, under her watch, the civil war went on and she was clueless as to how to make arrangements with Russia in building a consensus. The fact that chemical weapons were used is an indictment of her failed leadership. For all the air miles, she wasn’t able to make an arrangement with the Kremlin to ensure that chemical weapons and other illegal weapons were removed from the battlefield. I guess the issue with Burma or coming out in favour of same-sex marriage was really time-consuming.
You can blame Bush all you like but if you don’t have a clue, you don’t have a clue. What is now happening is that John Kerry looks like a leader and Hillary looks like as irrelevant as ever. Kerry for President anyone?

On Libya and the 9/11 Benghazi attack, that day will live in infamy. While Ambassador Stevens was being dragged through the streets with four other brave Americans, the Obama administration looked on and told all troops to stand down. They knew it was an act of terror but the Democrats wanted to double-down with their idiotic idea that Al-Qaeda were defeated.
Not only did they deny it was an act of terror, they also, at the behest of Hillary Clinton, blamed the whole thing on a spoof Islamic movie! All of that has been disproved beyond reasonable doubt. When Hillary was summoned to Congress to answer for Benghazi, Senator Ron Johnson asked as follows:

No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

She will be forever associated with that line: “what difference does that make?”

If she decided not to take the job, she would have a cushion from all of the above. She had name-recognition, money, serious support, strong network, married to Bill and she could’ve had plausible deniability in running for 2016.  

Whether she gets beaten in the primaries or in the general election, her status is diminishing. If I was running against her, I would make each debate a personal Q&A about her record at the State Department. Each campaign stop will involve someone from Benghazi or families that have been affected by her leadership (Mexico, Libya etc).

Whether she will be crowned as the Democratic nominee, I am not sure. 3 years is a long time in politics and remember she was the presumptive 2008 nominee before a freshmen Senator came along! We can never be sure. What is certain is that her legacy will endure and the longer the media coddle Obama and her records, the more folks will be thirsting for justice and answers.

Monday, 2 September 2013


The idea that America and Great Britain won’t assist in stopping war crimes in Syria is offensive to the time held principles that both countries have sought to uphold for centuries.

David Cameron and Barack Obama both had sweeping authority to do what is right without the need to consult with lawmakers. Some may say that Cameron and now Obama are doing the correct thing and that may be the case, but the last few weeks have been amateur at best.

If you are certain of your position, why have William Hague go on the record and say:
We, the United States, many other countries including France, are clear that we can't allow the idea in the 21st century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity
Same thing can be said about Obama. On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry was bold in his rhetoric about Syria:

Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday's attack happened.We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn't succeeded in doing so.We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons.We know that these were specific instructions.We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness, and death. And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors.

Sec. Kerry was essentially speaking at the behest of Obama. A mere few hours went by and Obama flipped positions and said:
While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger and our actions will be even more effective, if the strike is authorized by Congress.
What is happening here?! You talk a tough line on Syria and when push comes to shove you pass the buck onto Congress? Furthermore, if this matter is so urgent, Mr President, why don’t you recall Congress today, rather than wait until September 9th when they are due to return to session?

To make matters even worse, the fact that the media are talking about the fractions of the US-UK ‘special relationship’ rather than the fact that the Syria have committed war crimes on its own people is utterly repugnant in my eyes.

Obama and Cameron both have the power to at least carry out a targeted strike, or destroy the stockpiles of chemical weapons. We can debate whether it will actually do something long term but what is unequivocally clear is that by talking a big game but acting like a wimp when it comes down to it, is the worst thing you can do. Credibility aside, it is morally wrong to conduct foreign policy like that.

I do seriously question what will happen if this violence spills over out of Syria. Obama and Cameron have created a name for themselves on the world stage. Iran, Syria, China, Al-Qaeda and Israel all now know that Obama doesn’t have the temerity to act when it the crunch comes. The fact that Iran and Syria are emboldened not in retreat after the events of last week is an indictment against the Western alliance.

Chemical Weapons have been used and America and the West must be the standard-bearers for liberty, human rights and the rule of law. Obama & Cameron have essentially put all of that to one side with their actions over the last week or so.

I know that some folks don’t like this but the voice of America and the free world means a lot. The concept of liberty and freedom is what most of the world crave and associate with America.
In World War II, Vietnam, Soviet Union, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya to mention a few - America stood up for what is right and gave their hand to extend freedom to those yearning for it.

One person, who would not have stood by and allowed himself or the country to beholden by events and other players, is George W. Bush. Call him a warmonger all you like but the fact is he built massive alliances to tackle Islamic extremism and was able to build personal bonds with sometimes ‘sticky foes’ from Russia and China. The same cannot be said for Obama. 
You also knew that post 9/11 you didn't want cross him. His belief was there for all to see and that was freedom. In his 2004 RNC convention speech he said:

“This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many and the future security of our nation now depend on us. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America.”

Obama, Cameron all other players must take note of that message. What is the free world all about if we allow a chemical massacre to take place without clear ramifications?  Instead of dithering, take decisive (legal) action and ensure that folks know what you stand for? 

Tuesday, 11 June 2013


Ed Miliband ought to learn from Mitt Romney when it comes to elections.

Labour are holding out for the economy to suck that much, that they can pin the blame on David Cameron and the Tory party. 
The goal of opposition is to be the magnifying glass for the people. They are meant to highlight areas and portray to the public the 'wrongs' of current policy.

What Miliband and Ed Balls are doing wrong is that they haven’t been able to portray an alternative vision. Many people insist that an opposition isn't there to get involved with the specifics but merely to call-out. I say that if that tactic was working, Cameron would be in severe trouble and having to reshuffle every few months. 
Labour are NOT gaining in seats (Bradford-West & Eastleigh). 
They aren't rallying the troops to get behind their agenda. 
They are bereft of ideas and true leadership.

On Welfare – THE area for any Labour party to stockpile votes in any election, they don’t know what they want and it is killing them. Since Ed gazumped his brother to the leadership, he has constantly attacked the Tory-led coalition after they instituted a limit of benefits rises to 1 per cent. Now  - the story is that Ed has changed his mind.
“Social security spending, vital as it is, cannot be exempt from that discipline. Labour, if elected, would introduce a cap on ‘structural spending’ – such as housing benefit and disability allowances which are not affected by sharp upturns in unemployment – for three years.
So he was against any limits but now he is for them!!

In America, Mitt Romney essentially ran against Barack Obama and not for his own agenda to fix major flaws in the country.

At some point, you have to offer your own meaningful vision. With U-turns of serious proportions from Labour on welfare and a complete lack of clarity on issues, it is clear that unless things change boldly, the idea of Prime Minister, Ed Miliband is far from likely, nigh-on impossible. 

Sunday, 9 June 2013

Why is ObamaCare (still) so unpopular?

According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey it finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters now hold at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 54% view it unfavorably. Passion remains on the side of the opponents, with 15% who view the law Very Favorably compared to 40% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of it.

The answer is pretty simple but it is an important question. When you have approx. 30 million uninsured American’s and rising healthcare costs most recently in the last years; one would think the idea of tackling it would be paramount.

Most know the political angle and how it was rammed through a Democrat super-majority in Congress, but the essential question is whether it’s a good law or not? When I say good law, I mean will it:

a) Increase the insured, b) lower premiums and c) improve the quality of care.

a)    What ObamaCare certainly does is increase the insured. By aggressively expanding Medicaid eligibility at a subsidized rate it will bring millions into the system and giving them an opportunity for coverage.  

b)    It simply cannot lower premiums. The way ObamaCare was designed was to refuse insurance companies from rejecting people due to a pre-existing injury. ObamaCare also requires additional benefits to be offered regardless of the applicant(s). This range from: No Pre-existing conditions rejections, to, no caps on annual benefits.  When you have such a list of benefits that need to be added to a policy, the premiums will naturally skyrocket.

c)    The idea of improving quality of care comes when you have the ability to heal the sick. The people that do that are doctors and they are scathing about ObamaCare. A survey was done in 2010 by the Physicians Foundation in which 4 out of 10 were dissatisfied with the law and indicated that they would leave the profession, rather than treat the expanded Medicaid roll. There is already a doctor’s shortage and the idea of ObamaCare fully implemented will make things worse as the ratio of doctors to patients will grow rapidly and worsen the quality of care.

ObamaCare is amazing for the slightly ‘better than poor’ of America. It increases the eligibility for subsidised coverage, which they will definitely take at no cost to them.  
The saying goes: there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The taxpaying folks of America will pay for ObamaCare in higher taxes, premiums and fines. Additionally, companies will most likely drop insurance cover from their salary options and employees will have to buy into Health Insurance Exchange Programs.
This is like the government offering you restricted options of what insurance you need to have. If you do not insure yourself then you can receive a maximum fine of $2,085!  

With 300 million Americans and only 30 million uninsured whether it because they cannot afford it, or are ‘too healthy’ to care about paying a premium, the concept of ObamaCare maybe noble but it doesn't solve the problem.

My father has a great saying: why carpet the whole world, when you can just wear slippers! There was no need for the ObamaCare. The healthcare system in America didn't need a $1trillion+ bill. It needed mild reforms and smart adjustments to lower premiums and increased coverage.
One idea is that you can purchase insurance from wherever you like. Currently insurers are allowed to sell policies only in states where they are licensed to do business. This essentially means that you can’t purchase Health Care across state lines. So for example if live in the state of New York but the state of Colorado has better insurance provider and can offer me cost saving, then I cannot purchase! I am stuck in my state regardless of affordability, accessibility and cost. 
Surely lifting such a moratorium will reduce premiums as the idea of a free-market increases competition and lowers cost for all.

Moreover shouldn't we make it more difficult for doctors to be sued? To fend off any complaints of malpractice, a doctor will carry out more tests than necessary. That only raises costs and doesn't achieve much. According to a recent study 2.4% all spending on Healthcare spending is done to avoid being accused of medical dereliction. That money must be spent elsewhere and it is a fallacy that ObamaCare negated the need to reform that vital aspect.

In 2007, candidate Obama was championing for lower uninsured, controlled premium increases and higher quality of healthcare. If that sounds too good to be true, you’re correct; it is. 
By adding millions onto a system with a pork-load of benefits commonsense dictates that it can only increase premiums. It’s a shame Obama doesn't have any.

Monday, 13 May 2013


So it has come out that the IRS were harassing conservative charities and organizations since 2010. The fact that such a thing has happened is a total outrage and not in keeping with what America is all about. 

Folks are outrage for obvious reasons as the concept of trust is paramount to a stable government. 

The mainstream media, other than FOX News, are playing this down as a ‘run of the mill incident’ that must be investigated. Obama, in a press conference said that this situation is an “outrage and went on to say that those responsible for the practice should be held "fully accountable."

I would kind of give Obama some credit here. He spoke with passion and really ticked all the boxes. Unfortunately, the fact is that he will do ‘sweet nothing’ about this. He is living proof of a classic politician. No principles, No idea and ultimately not accountable to anyone. 

Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if his administration was running the IRS action, the mere fact that he won’t hold his own administration accountable for the Benghazi terrorist attack is proof that he is an ‘empty suit’. 

It was a known fact that he manipulated the talking points to remove any idea of Al-Qaeda being involved and he let his own people die the most gruesome death and just watched. You can say that it wasn't really him, then why aren't we holding his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to account. She gave the green light for the troops to stand down and couldn't care less of the recriminations. Just watch her testimony to Congress and you will see that she couldn't give a damn. 

You have to ask yourself that if there was a Republican in office, would the media stay put and call it ‘old news’, ignore the evidence and stand by and watch an innocent civil servants be demonized and barred from coming forward. 
The Benghazi terrorist attack was shocking enough, the fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton covered everything up and lied to the people is sick. 

I commend anyone that comes out and demands that these people are held to account. These people are not fit to lead the greatest country in the world. 
The impeachment of President Obama is certainly on the cards with regard to the IRS. Watergate took out Nixon- IRSGate could take out Barack!!!!

You can take the boy out of Chicago........

Friday, 26 April 2013


President George Walker Bush (left) has been the subject of much scrutiny throughout his 8 years in the White House. As with every human being he did make some mistakes but the Mainstream Media and extreme left wingers sought to discredit him at every turn and even now in his retirement.

Peggy Noonan was spot on when she said: “Disaffection for Bush gave us Obama. That explains the new affection for Bush”. George W Bush has increased in popularity since his departure in 2009 and the question that has to be asked is why? There could many but I think the answer is two-fold - Courage and Humility.

Bush believed and still does in freedom, democracy and the idea of America being a force for good. He didn't look at opinion polls, whether you think that was a good idea or not, it said something about him.
One of my proudest moments is I didn't sell my soul for the sake of popularity” he was famous for saying.

In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and fighting Islamic extremism – he should tremendous courage to revolutionize the intelligence, counter terrorism and armed services areas of the government. This all stemmed from his response to 9/11 which shook him the core and changed him. As a vindication to him, Obama has kept many of the Bush foreign policies since 2009, even though he campaigned against them.

His humility is pretty inspiring. Obama has been able to use Bush as a stick to beat with at every turn. Time and again he was refused to way in to that. He said from day he was leaving Washington that he wasn't going to criticize Obama. He said:
I have zero desire, just so you know, to be in the limelight. I don't think it's good for the country to have a former president criticize his successor. You're not going to see me giving my opinions in the public arena, until I start selling my book. I'm going to emerge then submerge.

His brother Jeb Bush got frustrated with the Obama attacks and mentioned it at the Republican National Convention in 2012. Dick Cheney has responded to the Obama tactics but to his credit Bush has not taken the bate. That to me is a trait that is missing today in Washington. Everyone is beating each other up and no one is taking the initiative. It’s a bipartisan problem which Obama and the GOP are at fault.

The American people, with their now more favorable opinion of George W Bush, are realizing that he is a good man that made tough choices, not blameless but is a genuinely decent man. Obama even said that about him.

Now with his Presidential Library in Dallas he will be able to put his record of their for everyone to see. History will remember him like Harry Truman. He, like Bush was hated by the people because of a lengthy war (Korea) but in the end the truth will come forth and set you free.  
Bush Library
History will judge him fairly and not the way the elite-media are trying to do. Facts are stubborn things and while he made mistakes from Katrina to not taking more of an active role in preventing the crash of 2008- he provided the American people with a clear direction in a face of untold terror, uncertainty and fear.

I would like to analyse some aspects of his presidency. A common theme from his opponents was that that the 43rd president should have been Al Gore after what happened in Florida. The claim was that Gore got more of the popular vote so Bush didn't really have a mandate. That would be true if America used the popular vote system. The founding fathers established the Electoral College system to ensure that the most populous states wouldn't have too much concentrated power. However if you want to play that way then in 92 & 96 Clinton received fewer popular votes than Bush did in 2000.

Another accusation is that Bush was ‘selected not elected’ to the presidency because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 5-4 not to continue the selective recount in Florida. I would then flip it this way; if they say that 5-4 is illegitimate in this case then other cases of 5-4 should be deemed illegitimate as well.

• Miranda vs. Arizona -  which gave people the right to remain silent
• Planned Parenthood vs. Casey extending Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion
• Furman vs. Georgia which struck down all state and federal death penalties statutes
• West Coast vs. Parrish which upheld a state minimum wage law for women

Despite being labelled as the “worst” president in Americas history he somehow confounding the media and “experts” managed to get re-elected into high office by beating Democratic rival John Kerry in the 2004 election by some 4 million votes.

Now let us get to the issues:

In September 2001- America was devastated by Al-Qaeda in the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Seeing the Twin Towers smashed down and the Pentagon severely damaged, clearly had an effect on the President. So Bush and his advisors had a big decision to make. His approval rating was 80% at that time; he could have made a couple of harsh statements about the attack and had serious dialogue with the Taliban and try to get his approval ratings in the nineties and a dead certainty for the next election. Or, he could take a different approach and start holding the people accountable and make the extremists pay for what they had done.

Immediately, he went to work by announcing the axis of evil and by saying if you’re not with us you’re against us. Even supporters of rouge states were put into that column. It was very clear from successive speeches and actions that he didn’t feel that America was the aggressor and knew that this generations calling was to act now.

He went straight to Afghanistan with a large coalition excluding France and Germany which were run by defeatist liberals in Chirac and Schroeder. The coalition hit them hard and swiftly. After the Taliban were deposed, the coalition was helped by the emergence of Hamid Karzai a pro western leader who would take over the premiership of the country.

Bush then realized that it was time to broaden the war on terror. This would be beginning of the most controversial period of his presidency.

In 2003 Bush went to war with Iraq under the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This intelligence came from the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency reports.
Despite many people saying that he exaggerated the threat of WMD’s in Iraq for political purposes. The following people also believed what the president did about Saddam Hussein:

1. President Bill Clinton remarks to Joint Chiefs and Pentagon February 17th 1998- “more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction”
2. Harry Reid- CNN inside politics September 18th 2002- “The President is approaching this in the right fashion”.
3. Joe Biden- Meet the Press August 4th 2002- “we know he (Saddam) continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability. Including nuclear”.
4. Secretary of State Madeline Albright February 18th 1998- “Iraq is the greatest security threat we have ever faced”.
5. John Edward- Buchanan & Press January 7th 2003- “day after day, week after week of intelligence briefings about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his intention on using them”.
6. Jay Rockefeller- senate floor October 10th 2002- “there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons”.
7. Nancy Pelosi- Meet the Press. November 17, 2002- “Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons there is no question about that”.

All of the above did say at some stage that Saddam had nukes and was threatening to use them. Please also note the CIA director George Tenant (who was appointed by President Clinton) called the case a “slam dunk”.

In 2004, the Democrats knew the election was all about Iraq and you could see it. All they were talking about was how we are getting beaten, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, Bush is liar and the troops are occupiers not liberators. That is what was on the cards during the 2004 election campaign. Bush was left with 2 choices. (a)Cut and run and accepts defeat or, (b) get the job done and find a way to win. Bush chose victory.

In 2007, with the war in Iraq on the slide, President Bush decided it was time for a change of strategy. Whilst, Democrats were saying it was time for a withdrawal, no strings attached, Bush had other ideas; everyone who had half a brain cell knew that as soon as the troops took a city and moved out, the insurgents came back in and committed more violence. Bush took too long to react to the situation but nevertheless, he acted in the right fashion. He ordered a surge of troops to enter into combat and once they took control of a town they had a sufficient numbers to hold the vicinity. At the same time they could advance to other towns and provinces with enough support.

Well, despite the grim predictions from the far left media and the Democrats; the surge succeeded. Of the 18 benchmarks that were set 15 of them were reached and violence was down to such a level that in one month, more people died in Detroit than in Iraq. Whatever you say about the Iraq war and all the problems, Bush finally achieved success in what many perceived to be a lost cause. The success of the surge was so resounding that, 9% of the American electorate said that Iraq was at the top of the agenda in the 2008 election.

When it came to other regimes Bush was decisive in his actions.

He was very swift in removing Yasser Arafat from any potential negotiations in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Bush took one look at him and realised that he was a veiled terrorist who had no interest in peace with Israel. So he sidelined him!

He refused to negotiate with Kim Jong Ill of North Korea and beefed up sanctions. In the last year the pressure has taken its toll and Pyongyang finally revealed some of its secrets. They say that diplomacy works but only with a bite and that his how Bush dealt with Pyongyang.

In Iran, a terrorist was ‘elected’ to the presidency by the name of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has continuously called for the destruction of Israel, denied the holocaust, trained and funded terrorist organisations, called for a second holocaust and aggressively seeks to become a nuclear state. President Bush had the right idea at the beginning and put a lot of pressure on such as sanctions and also refused to take the military option off the table. However, with two wars in progress he didn't have the resources to start another one.

Very few presidents actually get both the economy and foreign policy correct during their time in office. The last president to really sort both aspects of the presidency out was Ronald Reagan.

George W Bush put all his efforts into foreign policy which I believe has made America safer. The fact that there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is down to Bush. Simultaneously, the economy has tanked, he has let spending get out of control and the deficit is higher than ever. His reward for this will be that his legacy on the economy will be negative.

Many people are putting their blinkers on when analyzing President Bush. On the left they believe that everything that he has done is a complete catastrophe. On the right they believe that he has handled the economy brilliantly.

He has however, got foreign policy spot on. Since 9/11 he has taken the fight to the terrorist and has largely succeeded. He has given the people of Iraq and Afghanistan a chance of freedom and prosperity. He realized who America’s enemies were and was clear in his thinking.

He never gave into the appeasers and never consulted opinion pollsters before making a policy decision. His legacy will be Iraq, 9/11 & the 2008 Recession. He will be looked back as the leader who snatched 'victory from the jaws of defeat' in Iraq and the man that courageously lead America through 9/11 and saw the signs of evil and vowed to destroy it. 

I for one was a big supporter of Al Gore in the 2000 election. I remember the morning when I woke up and saw the TV showing Governor Bush elected as 43rd President. It was a very sobering day for me and one that I will never forget.
Remembering that day now is quite humoring.  My friends laugh at me about my support for Bush and the fact that I was a Democrat. My response has always been that a certain Ronald Reagan was Democrat before he saw the light!

President  Bush taught me a lot about principles and core beliefs. He faced a lot of detractors during his time in office and many people argued that he was doing the wrong thing in Iraq, but he stood on principle and saw the job through. A lot of people when facing difficult times find it is easy to 'cave in' and do the easy thing. I tell them to look at the case of Iraq and what Bush did. He never gave in and fought to the end on core principles to dramatic effect. Whilst every famous figure has faults and Bush will admit he had many, it is essential that you take away as much of the good as possible from his time. You must be objective and look at the case at the time, not retrospectively. 99% of people would've done no different to what Bush during his presidency. 

When it comes to President George W Bush you can’t deny that he is stood on principle, never gave up and will be judge as a tremendous leader during very hard times in the 21st century.