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. 

Monday, 22 April 2013


The events of Boston last week have gripped America and the world. The tragedy felt but numerous families will live long in the memory. 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the alleged Boston Marathon bomber was captured, barely alive, by the Boston Police Department on Saturday 20th April.

In true American style, celebrations went on during the night to revel the capture of Tsarnaev and the hard work of the BPD.

Isn't it nice to see such genuine scenes of jubilation, relief and patriotism to celebrate the death of a filthy, cold-blooded, Islamic terrorist, who killed an 8 year old, Martin Richard and maimed countless others. Yet, one only has to remember the despicable scenes from England, UK where cold-hearted' monsters, celebrated the death of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher!
If ever anyone needed a ‘compare and contrast’ moment, the above scenes in Boston strike it home. 

Thatcher Death Parties

Thursday, 18 April 2013


President Obama took the stump to decry the fact that Universal Background Checks were not going to pass the Democrat-run Senate.
Obama, with Gabby Giffords and the Newtown victims’ families were standing with the President as he gave his press conference. He was absolutely incensed that he didn’t get what he wanted from this debate. He devoted a lot of his political capital on Gun Control and it has backfired tremendously.
Here is what Obama said that really riled me up:

“So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. But this effort is not over.  I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it.  Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities.  We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system.  We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job.  We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools. But we can do more if Congress gets its act together.  And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters. To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.” 
For goodness sake, Mr President! What standards do you live by? How does he sleep at night?
Were you so carrying out ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ while you were ramming ‘ObamaCare’ down our throats? You foolishly claimed that doctors were amputating patients just to gain a few more bucks. We still haven't been given any proof of one case of that happening. When Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy and thus block Obama's veto proof majority, instead of starting the process again, he went against Americans and got the bill through Congress. 
Now because he lost, he is all angry and supposedly, principled!
President Obama said that “Ninety percent of Americans support the idea of background checks” that is factually false! He can’t substantiate that figure and that is why he tried to use emotion during this debate.
When it comes to the battlefield of ideas, emotion can only take you so far; you have to be able to articulate a coherent message. Obama has never been able to get anywhere near that during this debate - Hence the props of Giffords & the Newtown families at every turn. The real sad thing is that the Newtown families haven't really been allowed to grieve, as they have been kept in the public domain for such a long time. 
Obama went on further to say:
“To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one. The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.  Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way.  But they're better organized.  They're better financed.  They’ve been at it longer.  And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this.  And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington.  And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.”
 Obama is calling for his own Tea Party movement to tackle this issue. How ludicrous for the 'prop-in-chief' to stand up and ask for a national movement on this, but completely isolate and marginalize a legitimate grassroots movement like the Tea Party! 
Everyone knew that ObamaCare was going to be an absolute travesty as it destroys Health Care coverage for millions; ruins the quality of care and increases premiums and that's a fact Mr President.

The President is getting a little bit of Karma here! He disregarded the will of the American people on ObamaCare but is tapping it for one his pet projects being the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Control has been a completely failure for Obama. Yesterday’s statement in the Rose Garden showed that he is out of ideas and completely clueless about the true will of the people. 

Monday, 15 April 2013


Liberal  — adj

  • 1.    relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform

  • 2.  relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom

  • 3.    giving and generous in temperament or behaviour

  • 4.    tolerant of other people

Focus on the points 3 & 4 in particular when you see the vile and disgraceful antics since the passing of Margaret Thatcher.
The so called “giving and generous” class of our society spared no attempt in acting like a violent, narrow-minded mob during their Thatcher Death Parties.
They danced, drank and celebrated like it was New Year’s over the weekend and even burned effigies of the Iron Lady. The scenes from Trafalgar Square were reminiscent of a rally in the Middle East after some crazed terrorist (who happened to kill thousands of people in cold blood) was terminated by western forces.

Blood has boiled in many households around Great Britain; most are furious at the way the Left have reacted and conducted themselves since Thatcher’s passing.

There is no way that we can stop these idiotic lunatics from carrying out such distasteful protest during the funeral as that would be the antithesis of what a democracy is.

What we can do is similar to one of the founding fathers of the ‘mob’, Saul Alinsky which is: 
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”

On Wednesday, when demonstrations, parties, vile chanting and more effigies being burnt during her funeral procession will inevitably occur - you will see the real face (if you haven’t already) of the Leftist movement in Britain.

Just like you were incensed by the Leftist organisation, Occupy Wall Street and their shocking acts – so should you be with this.  

The London Riots in 2011 a brainchild of the Leftist culture resulted in damages up to and over £300Million, people dead, business ruined and many homes/business destroyed.

The modern day Leftist have no problem in rioting, looting, raping women and being genuinely disgusting smelly people but apparently the average person are called racist because we are worried about mass immigration without any integration; or being concerned about the welfare state of the country.  

Liberals call us ‘out of touch’ and ‘bigots’ for having legitimate concerns about the true roots of Climate Change and opposing the idea of gay marriage. 

We are called ‘anti-poor and/or heartless’ for wanting fundamentally lower taxation, limited government spending and benefits capped to the genuinely sick and disabled.

When we condemn acts such as Occupy Wall Street, the London Riots, G20 protest and now Thatcher Death Parties as nothing short of vulgar – we are called out for not being ‘tolerant’ enough of other people’s opinions and therefore bullied into silence.
  • Liberals didn't celebrate in public when Hitler died.
  • When Gaddafi perished they didn't feel the need to dance in the streets.
  • When the liberated newly democratic country of Iraq sentenced Saddam Hussein to death, I don’t recall seeing a swarm of people in Trafalgar Square popping Dom Pérignon.  
  • When Bin-Laden was taken out there wasn't any death parties or riots in celebration along the Thames.

It absolutely astounding that the modern day Left will discount Hitler, Bin Laden, Gaddafi, Milosevic and other murderous terrorist thugs and their crimes against humanity- yet they will hold Margaret Thatcher, who turned Britain from terminal decline into a prosperous nation within 11 years – with such contempt that they will depict her as worse than all of the above!

That is the modern day liberal for you folks & the pictures offer vindication. 


Thursday, 11 April 2013


Ed Miliband made the above statement in Ipswich about a ‘one nation country’ under his Labour Party.         

It’s a little bit ironic that he is championing “rebuilding Britain together” but is the one heavily involved in vicious attacks on the majority of the country. When Miliband quotes the ‘rich v poor’ slogans at every possible turn, it isn't about trying to release people from the shackles of bloated government hand-outs - it’s about strengthening the dependency society (Labour Party voters). This is not surprising coming from an individual stooped in Marxist theory and bound to the Unions which elected him leader of his party. 
Tony Blair advocated open borders, to attract new voters for his political party. 
Red Ed wants the same with a permanent underclass dependent society.

In his speech he touched on the idea of class warfare and blamed everything on David Cameron for all the ills of the country. However it’s Ed Miliband not David Cameron who has tried to divide the people in to class, race and other such things.
The people of Britain, the hard working ones, are tired of class politics and focus groups. Government should be intended to be in the background, assisting the worker to prosper, not impose quotas, targets and other such politically correct benchmarks. 

Ed Miliband, like most Lefty leaders are not able to offer anything other than government-centered ideas aka Marxism.

Margaret Thatcher put it quite nicely when talking about the way a government should be run:
“We intended policy in the 1980s to be directed towards fundamentally different goals from those of most of the post-war ear. We believed that since jobs (in a free society) did not depend on government but upon satisfying customers, there was no point in setting targets for 'full' employment. Instead, government should create the right framework of sound money, low taxes, light regulation and flexible markets (including labour markets) to allow prosperity and employment to grow.”
That is how it should work and essentially Ed Miliband wants to get away from that and adopt the below policy which Maggie T warned us of:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the government's job to cope with it!' or 'I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!'; 'I am homeless, the government must house me!' and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.
It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.” 
It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.” 

If you listen to most BBC Radio phone-ins today the questions is not what you can do for your country, but what government can do for me.
The Iron Lady showed the difference between the voting for a Capitalist and voting for a Marxist.
It is time for pure Capitalism to come to prominence again and reject the idiocy of Ed Miliband.

Tuesday, 9 April 2013


Margaret Thatcher may no longer be with us, but what she gave to the world will be cherished for generations. 

The fact is, if you asked people today if they are happier Pre-Thatcher or Post-Thatcher – the answer would resoundingly be the latter.

She changed Britain for the better and you can see it even today.

When it came to Communism, Unions, Taxes, Jobs, Falklands and Bloated Government she was able to tackle the core problems and make the country prosperous.  

If you ask most people whether she was correct in taking on those big issues, even most of her fierce opponents agreed that she was right. They didn't like how she went about her business. That maybe true but she did counter that by saying: “If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing.” 
If she adopted the policy of “go along to get along” she wouldn't have ever succeeded or even been Conservative leader in the first place.

Furthermore she was adamant that Britain needed to change:

"I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain." 

History is already judging her with a sense of awe. The way that the Left have been vilifying her since her passing is not really surprising. That doesn't mean that we can’t condemn them. She has been compared to a wicked witch and Osama Bin-Laden as per the below picture courtesty of

If you go on Twitter you will see even more vile diatribe from the so called ‘tolerant’ people of our country. Ironically, the people that called her misguided, dangerous and incorrect were as wrong yesterday as they were during her Premiership. 

Actions speak louder than words and facts are stubborn things and it is irrefutable that Britain is far better off for having the Iron Lady in power than not. 

She truly was the most successful Prime Minister since Winston Churchill.