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?