News review November 11

Football punishment
The English Football Association has fined West Ham and Chelsea, £40,000 and £50,000 for 'failing to control their players' during their recent encounter.

Seriously?  These amounts are utterly meaningless to clubs of their size.  Also, there is no punishment for the causers of the loss of control - the players!

Surely all of the players, should each be fined - something substantial, say £100,00 each - and they should all have a yellow card assigned- something that adds up and leads, if repeated,  to a 3 match ban.  I do mean all.  The whole team, not just those that get involved in the melee.

As for the clubs, make the punishment meaningful.  An instant deduction of 3 points and, of 9 points if they are a repeat offender.  I can't help but think that this would concentrate the minds.  Points and league positions equate to serious money and money-making opportunities.

While we are on the subject.  If the manager/coach is punished, then again, the club should have points deducted.

In English football, today, monetary punishments are useless.  It's points that matter!

Refugees again
European and African leaders are meeting in Malta, to discuss the problem of economic migrants that are currently flooding into Europe.

We can expect the usual claptrap about developing Africa so that people will stay in their home country, etc., followed by European throwing money, Africa's way.

However, as in the past, this will be totally irrelevant and won't solve the problem.

African economic migrants want to come to Europe because their economic prospects, in Europe, are better.  Some will claim that this is because of European welfare programmes.  This then becomes a useful foil for pro-immigration liberals to attack and use against immigration controls, by screaming 'racist'!  Whatever the truth, the migrants come because they will have a better economic life in Europe than they would have in Africa.

The only real solution is to close the door.  And seal it!  In practise this would mean returning all of these immigrants to their home country.  All of them.  Returned.  No half measures - all of them, returned.  We have to turn back the flood at the source.   To let these people know that they simply cannot come in.  That, if they do make it to our shores, then each and every one of them, each and every time, will be returned from whence they came.  And, to keep on sending them back.

Any half-measures or anything less than complete repatriation means that Europe may as well do a 'Merkel' and just tell all of Africa to come on over.

US GOP Debate
The latest debate has taken place.  I didn't see the TV show but there is dispute over who performed well and who didn't.

From what I can gather:

Ben Carson was fairly quite but escaped unscathed, with no mud, about his memoir mis-rememberings.

Donald Trump was noisy as always and found to be severely wanting on his foreign policy platform and ridiculed for his plans to repatriate 11 million illegal immigrants.

Ted Cruz, when he got the chance to speak on any subject, seems to have 'knocked it out of the park' and showed not just his very strong debating skills but also the depth of his policy proposals.

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio also seem to have performed well, though Paul's isolationist stance is, rightly, unpopular.

The others?  Well Kasich behaved boorishly and interrupted a lot, Bush got a couple of good hits in but no killer quotes.  Fiorina showed competence but at times seems fixated on Trump's anti-female slip-ups.

Overall,  Cruz and Rubio looked and sounded like winners and of course Trump and Carson are still there but we should soon start  ti see the others, falling away.m  As they do, we can expect Trump's shortcomings to become ever more apparent.  

America's bureaucrats
I can't believe I am alone in being outraged that senior bureaucrats that are supposed to serve the American people, can 'take the fifth' and, then continue in their well-paid roles.

John Koskinen, the current Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,  has 'taken the fifth' while testifying to Congress concerning the wholesale shenanigans that went on, under the earlier Commissioner, Lois Lerner.

Think about that.  He is employed by the US government.  Congress, on behalf of the US taxpayer, exercises oversight of, among other agencies, the IRS.  Congress is there to make sure that the IRS carries out its work in accordance with the wishes of, and on behalf of, the US taxpayer.  Yet, when Congress want to question the head of the IRS, he is able to 'take the fifth' and he still gets to keep his job!!  Can anyone imagine being able to do that in the private sector?

" Tom, I want to speak to you about the performance of your department"  "Sir" responds Tom, "I refuse to answer your questions on the grounds of potential self-incrimination"  "Oh!", says Tom's boss,  "okay then, let's move on".

If these bureaucrats were doing a great job, you could maybe feel some sympathy at them having to face, what might possibly be politically inspired questioning.  However, many, at the top simply aren't.  Look at the Environmental Protection Agency, that polluted the Colorado River.  Look at the Veterans Administration, that continues to mistreat and intentionally delay treatment to America's veterans.  Look at the IRS, that targeted organisations that were anti-Obama.  Look at the Justice Department that went after General Petraeus for having classified documents on a personal computer but has done nothing, about Hillary Clinton's use of, and then wiping cleaning of, a personal e-mail server.  The list goes on and on and the 'tone from the top' is so inappropriate that it is no wonder that these agencies are so out of control.




  

Labour's defeat

I don't wish to take anything away from the, frankly stunning, victory of David Cameron's Conservatives but the UK GE2015 election results are almost as much about the defeat of Labour as about the Conservatives.

The opinion pollsters will now conduct a post mortem into their abject failure to predict the outcome of the election.  Whatever, they now say, the polls that they published understated support for Conservatives and overstated that for Labour.  I like to think that they got it so wrong because the people that they asked consistently chose to fool the pollsters - otherwise known as lie to them, rather than give them straight, honest answers.   I am no psephologist but I always wonder how polling around a 1,000 people can give any kind of reasonable view or cross-section of the polling intentions of 46 million voters.

Anyway, no doubt the pollsters will enquire and conclude that it was the voters that were wrong and not them.  I can't see many people having much faith in their polls until they have re-built credibility.

So to Labour.

Ed Miliband resigned the leadership of Labour, once it became clear that they had soundly lost the election.  There are some, me included, that think his resignation was about four years too late but......

Now Labour does what it does best.  It will have a leadership election that will solve nothing.  Much as I didn't like Ed Miliband - he just didn't come across as sincere or honest - the biggest problem with Labour was their policies and over-riding that fatal flaw was their absolute unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial crisis that the UK faced, at the time of the 2010 General Election.  If I was a Conservative strategist, I would replay to the British public, time and time again, the part of the so called 'Leaders Question Time' where Miliband is asked if Labour overspent and he says no.  The audience reaction of utter disbelief, was surely reflective of the country at large.

Unless and until Labour say sorry for the financial mess, they will always lose on the economy, always.  They spoke, time and again, as did the odious SNP, about cuts and austerity and, did I mention savage cuts?  Yet people understand that while some of these did impact heavily upon some people, overall, these were essential and were handled sensitively.   Labour bang on about the NHS in some sort of proprietorial way but for me, people don't distrust the Conservatives anywhere near as much as Labour think they do or should.  I think that on the NHS, the discussion is moving more towards the Conservative side than Labour understand.  

The reason I mention some of the Labour election platform is that the current candidates for Ed Miliband's position seem destined to repeat the errors of his leadership,

The candidates are

Andy Burnham - I can state categorically that it isn't the whiny voice and his sense of  only he being able to 'really, really' understand and 'really, really' feel the pain of people, that bothers me about the 'emote at the drop of a hat' Burnham.  It his failure to take any responsibility for the 1,300+ unnecessary deaths which occurred in his beloved NHS, at Mid Staffs and elsewhere, when he was in-charge of the NHS.  Read the horror of Mid Staffs here  Simply put, Burnham has displayed very serious character flaws.  That and his allegiance to old-style Labour re-distributionist policies show him to be out of touch with the aspirations of people. Some other posts on the NHS are here  and here

Yvette Cooper - Can sound a little shrill at times but her most serious flaw, aside from being tied to out-dated policies, is that she is the wife of Ed Balls.  I can't speak to what attracted her to Balls nor what keeps her there but surely, at some recent point in their relationship she should have been able to convince Balls that he and Miliband needed to apologise for the financial mess and to take responsibility for it.  If she cannot persuade the man who shares a bed with her, of the massive errors of the party platform, then what faith can anyone have in her ability to negotiate on behalf of the UK or firmly deal with her union paymasters?  Every time I see Yvette Cooper, I think Ed Balls and I immediately think financial mess.  Maybe that's not fair, but that is my reality, and I would suspect that of many others.

Chuka Umana - Should narcissism be a qualifying condition for the leadership?  Every time I see Chuka, I see someone that seems more interested in how he looks and if his tie matches his suit and shirt etc.  Editor in Chief of GQ magazine  - maybe but far too lightweight to lead the Labour Party.  Imagine if you will, horror that it might be, that Labour is in power and Chuka has to face down Len McCluskey  of Unite regarding a series of public sector strikes and also to contend with aggressive moves from Putin's Russia and, at the same time, Daesh attacks in the UK.  Can you see that and see Chuka with any kind of the required knowledge and experience or gravitas?  Umana has been described (by himself?) as the UK's Obama.  Seeing how the former Community Organiser, Obama, has created great divisions within the US and promoted failed policy after failed policy, and destroyed America's standing in the world.  Should Labour elect someone with such aspirations?

The other declared candidates.  
Liz Kendall  I know little about, which maybe is a good thing because she maybe isn't painted into that 'we didn't overspend' corner and without such baggage may be able to provide Labour with a policy platform that focuses on the needs and aspirations of real people rather than a metropolitan elite.
Tristram Hunt - His opposition to Michael Gove's education reforms should automatically disqualify him - again, his adherence to party and union dogma seeks to override the aspirations of people.


Like many people, I find that Labour has nothing to offer me or my children.  Fundamentally, that is their problem.  The leadership is much less relevant.  Miliband's ineptitude with a bacon sandwich didn't help.  His inability to say sorry was a key factor - a clear character flaw. At the end of the day though, it always come down to policy and Labour had nothing to offer today's voters.  Until they get that right, it doesn't matter who they chose as leader!

After the Mid Terms

Thanks to American voters, Republican Party candidates did very well in the US' Mid Term elections.  That sounds so  good to write that I will say it again.  The Republican Party gave the Democrat Party a thrashing in the Mid Term elections.

And let's be clear - a thrashing is what it was.  Leave aside, for a moment, the exceedingly good results in the Senate and Gubernatorial  races - since these were not nation-wide then they can be said to not be representative of the 'national mood'.  The same cannot be said of the elections for the House of Representatives.  These were conducted across America and, given President Obama's assertion that his policies were 'on the ballot', then there was a very clear repudiation of those policies. I suspect that it wasn't just the overt policies - those that head towards the statute book, I think that it was also the modus operandi employed by the Democrats that was rejected (more on this, shortly).

Americans across the country have seen the left-ward lurch under Obama and, in spite of a fawning and therefore uninformative media, they have rejected that direction and have indicated a desire to move back towards more traditional American values and politics.

That said, I sense that this 're-positioning' should not be considered as permanent.  By this I mean that the American people have been sorely tested by Obama's economic 'recovery' the failings of Obamacare and the various scandals that would have engulfed any other administration but with the compliance of the media, merely 'stained' this one, but I don't think that Republicans have clearly articulated a coherent alternative.  So, .......

When the new Congress convenes in January, they need to hit the ground running.  Republicans cannot be Republicans in name only (RINOs).  Nor can Tea Party adherents be ideological obstructionists.   Both wings of the 'right' need to come together and pursue Republican policies.  And this united front needs to be complied with.  So no sulking and taking your vote away because your too far right of 'right of centre' idea has been rejected by the majority of the Republican movement.  Argue your position and then get behind the decision.  America is not your plaything and can't simply wait on you sulking in your tent, nor will America forgive such petulance.  The 'right' has an opportunity to pursue conservative policies and push that agenda but that doesn't mean pursuing far right or 'Democrat in Republican clothing' policies.  America is in trouble and needs its conservatives to put aside the 'nice to haves' and to focus on the 'have to haves'.  To focus on getting Americans back to work, a strong economy and a strong and respected America.

In short, Republicans need to get on with the job for which they were collectively elected - to 'fix' America.

What does that mean?  Well, let's consider the current state of play.  The Democrats and the President still have a little under two months to push through legislation and then, after January, President Obama has his mighty pen and Executive Orders.  Congress after January is obviously though, not without its own power, not least of which is to defund, defund and defund.


In my view, Mitch McConnell, assuming he is elected as Majority Leader and Speaker John Boehner  need to come out and publicly state that any inflammatory legislation, e.g. an immigration amnesty, that is rushed through before the new Congress sits, will be opposed and, come January, repealing legislation will be passed.  Same applies to any pardons or whitewashes of the various scandals that have surfaced - these abuses of power will be pursued and prosecuted - not to the exclusion of all else, fixing the economy has absolute priority, but for the good of  America's democracy.

During the recent campaign, much was made of the number of bills that are sitting on former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid's desk.  The number was in excess of 300.   What particularly irked people was that many of these had passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and some, unanimously so.  Therefore these bills, should now move from the Harry Reid waiting room, through to the floor of the Senate and onwards to votes and Presidential signing.

Next, Obamacare.  All I have heard of it tells me that this is wrong for America.  Certainly it isn't delivering the savings nor the coverage that was touted.  Rather than get into a battle over repealing it - Obama will be most unlikely to sign any such repeal into law - simply defund it.  Or, if it can be fixed (and Republican thinkers, when they apply themselves are very innovative) then proceed with it but, and it is a big one, there can be no exemptions.  Congress cannot pass laws and then exempt itself from the effects of such laws.  That might have worked for pre-revolution French aristocrats but not for 21st Century Americans.

The Senate needs to institute hearings on the scandals that have surfaced (VA administration, Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS, spring immediately to mind).  Such hearings have been blocked by Harry Reid and the Democrats because they will clearly be an embarrassment for the Obama administration.  This cannot continue.  And if people like the former IRS head, Lois Lerner, plead the 'fifth' then recognise the fact that she is in contempt of Congress and throw her in jail.  Same for those people who are busily destroying e-mails!

Fundamentally though, the new Republican Congress needs to work on fixing America.  Be very clear, there is a deep disapproval of Congress, by the electorate.  My view is that this is because Americans see Congress as more interested in politicking than in getting something done (and maybe also, 'lining their own pockets' at the same time.

Don't look to the White House for support - it hasn't come in the last six years, it won't come in the next two. A  job title for Community Organizer sounds like it should qualify you to bring people together but we have seen that the former Community Organizer, occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is only concerned with telling the community what to do and doesn't feel the need to listen to the community.

As said earlier, fixing America means putting aside what divides Republicans and focusing on getting the economy re-built.

I am British and I know this about Republicans.  It doesn't matter if they are left of centre-right, centre right or right of centre right or even really right of centre-right, they have common core principles founded on a love of their country and the US Constitution and a belief in conservative values such as small government.  Think of those uniting principles in the coming months and focus on restoring America.  The USA needs this and so does the rest of the right-thinking World.

Answer to the ISIS dilemma

Western governments are in denial.

Right now they know that there is no appetite for any kind of 'boots on the ground' nor for any tie-up with the odious Assad regime. 

So what can they do to address this very significant threat? 

They are no doubt counting on ISIS' fifth columns within the USA, UK and France to commit bombing atrocities such that a groundswell of opinion for military intervention builds.  They must calculate how many bombings are needed.  Another Boston or maybe a spectacular like 9/11 or another Fusilier Lee Rigby or 7/7 in London?  Or maybe this time in Paris, which has a very special concern about its growing and self-alienated Muslim minority?

We should be alarmed because these atrocities will occur.  There is an inevitability about this that has escaped the media.

Islam is a religion of dominance.  Its adherents allow for no 'non-believers'.  You are either a Muslim and follower of Mohammed or you are an infidel.  Simply put, ones that doesn't follow Islam.  It will come as no comfort to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Atheists or those that follow the Jedi tradition, that their long and  often deeply held beliefs, count for nothing.  They are infidels and they must either convert to Islam or be punished.

The punishment is now being meted out on a daily basis in Iraq, to Christians and to Yazidis.  Also now, we hear, to Shiite Muslims.  The punishment is death.  There is no concept of co-existence, no 'my way or the highway'.  It's the Muslim way or death! Nothing extreme about this Sunni Muslim religion!  Think about this when you next hear some liberal fool tell you that Islam is the religion of peace!   Look twice and listen thrice at the 'moderate' Islamist that says that these fanatics don't represent the true face of Islam.  Simply put, these fanatics do represent Islam.

Catholics and Protestants fought many wars and caused countless deaths in furtherance of the schism in Christianity but the numbers have the potential to fade into insignificance compared to the deaths that will flow from the conflict between the two strands of Islam.  The 8 year long Iraq/Iran war cost the lives of an estimated million souls but that can be viewed as an appetizer for the multi-course banquet of death that awaits.  The 200,000 deaths in the proxy war being fought in Syria is also barely a taste of things to come. 

Right now, Sunni Saudi Arabia, with its extreme (though that term is relative) Wahabi sect, is at war with Shiite Iran and, in Syria and Iraq, the Saudis are in the ascendancy.  I say this, not to seek support for Iran, who are as likely to be as murderous as are the Saudi and Qatari backed ISIS fanatics.   Rather, this is a statement of the current state of play, however, should as seems ever more likely, Iran complete its quest for nuclear weapons, then the whole dynamic changes. 

In this goal of achieving a nuclear capability,  the Iranians are being aided by the inept policies of the Obama administration and a resurgent Russia (also a beneficiary of Obama's failed policies) as well as a feeble European Union foreign affairs effort.

The civilised world faces an existential battle. 

Communist China is feeling the effects of this.  India has seen this in the recent past, so has , Argentina, France, Nigeria and the aforementioned USA and UK to name just some of the countries.  Even the peacefully neutral Swedes and Norwegians are experiencing the conflict between their open societies and those of their Islamic migrant communities.  Denmark too has seen the illiberal consequences of allowing a cartoonist to publish his works.  Indeed Russia too, has tragic experience of trying to co-exist with the 'religion of peace' but Putin, having, some in the West say 'brutally dealt' with Islamic dissidents and terrorists, is currently playing a different game to secure Russia's borders and to poke America and the EU, in the eye at every opportunity.

So the solution?

First some history. 

When the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait in 1990, Margaret Thatcher was reported as telling the American President, George H Bush, not to go 'wobbly' and to have 'stiffened his spine' on the issue of confronting Saddam.  She saw the threat posed by Saddam and so too did Bush #1 quickly come to this realisation.

With, ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the civilised world faces a similar choice - either we fight now, in the sands of Arabia and Persia or we fight soon on the streets of London, Paris, New York, Beijing and Dehli.

Make no mistake, this is a fight that isn't going to go away.  It takes a certain type of fanaticism to hack-off the heads of people that don't follow your brand of religion.  The same kind of fanaticism that causes people to fly planes into buildings or walk into a hotel and randomly shoot people or to strap on a suicide bomb vest and detonate the bomb in a crowded market place.  Does it sound like these are people that can be reasoned with?  The lure of the 72 virgins is just too great for these people.  So since death is what they most want, death should be visited upon them and their supporters.

The solutions are not pretty but there is nothing nice about the aftermath of a suicide bombing or the beheading of innocents.

The world needs to decide where it stands and then back-up their declared position.  Russia needs to say if they are with the West or against it.  There can be no fence-sitting or neutrality.  Why?  Well this is about all-out war.  And it will be bloody and terrible.  ISIS and similar intolerant organisations need to be destroyed, not neutered, annihilated completely. 

Similarly Saudi Arabia and Qatar need to be brought to heel.  They cannot enjoy the fruits of western civilisation and industry while at the same time seeking the destruction of those societies.  The leadership of these countries need to be changed to reflect the required new direction that these countries must take.

Iran must immediately cease funding its proxies in Lebanon and Palestine and completely destroy its nuclear programme.  Again, regime change is needed.

Pakistan must give-up its nuclear weapons.  At this time the state is too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.  Its security services operate as a 'state within a state' and must be brought under democratic control before they decide to pass on enriched uranium to Islamic terrorists.

In Iraq and Syria, the allies - those that are 'with us' - need to impose a very heavy and brutally ruthless, military solution.  Any opposition, any, must be crushed and crushed completely.  There can be no hand-wringing in the media or from liberals in the West.  The consequences of a softly-softly approach can already be seen on the streets of our cities where ISIS fellow-travelers become ever more bold in pushing their murderous ideologies.  Where Islamsists kill a British soldier , on the streets of the capital and try to hack-off his head.  Where Islamists explode bombs at the finish-line of a marathon race.  Unfeeling brutality and force must be met with the a multiplied version of the same.  Make no mistake though, this will mean bombs dropped by planes and so called civilian casualties but we will also require to put 'boots on the ground'.  We will also need to impose economic sanctions against these people - starve them of the goods and yes, foods,  that their people need.  Frankly faced with pictures of the victims of ISIS or the pictures of starving ISIS followers, I would always be moved by the former and never by the latter.

The approach to Iraq and Syria must also be applied in North Africa and Nigeria.

In the home countries, Islamists must also make a decision.  Are they with their home country, in the existential fight against radical Islam or are they with the enemy?  If the latter, then they must be imprisoned - yes whole families interred.  You, as an Islamist, cannot live in the USA, UK or France etc., and burn the flags of those countries or spit on its soldiers.  You cannot declare certain areas as alcohol-free or forbid people to have dogs or women to walk around without a hijab.  These home countries and their traditions existed ever before you did.

Immediately, the oxygen of publicity must be deprived to Islamic organisations, the Muslim Council in the UK and CAIR in the USA are at best, just apologists for their murderous co-religionists.  They place an equivalence on the actions of these barbarians with those of the West  They insist on applying the laws of the host countries when it suits them, while all the time trying to impose Sharia law.

Immediately, any of the ISIS fighters, from western countries, that return 'home', must be imprisoned.  They must be taken out of circulation.

Immediately, the 'hate' legislation that exists in so many countries must be applied against these people that would threaten our very existence.  They may not all be prepared to be front-line 'fighters' but they support, with their hate-filled words, the elimination of Western ways.    There is a 'hands-off' policy linked to the failed  multi-culturalist policies that the West has adopted, which exempts Muslims from the application of law.  This has to stop.

Immediately, the Palestinian boil needs to be lanced.  The Abbas regime in the West Bank must be issued with an ultimatum.  Either you accept the right of Israel to exist or we (the West) will immediately cease all aid and impose a blockade to starve you into submission and we will fund opposition to Fatah, that does want peace.

In respect of Gaza, a similar ultimatum.  Either give-up the ISIS like Hamas terrorists or face the brutal consequences of your continued intransigence.  You have to decide if you want war or peace but know that war will be total and Gaza flattened!

The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron has talked of a generational struggle against this poisonous ideology and other politicians are coming to realise the battles that must be fought.  As said earlier though, this isn't about the traditional 'West'  This struggle affects India, China, Latin America, Africa and indeed, all of the world.

Who are you with?

Robin Williams - perspective

I don't seek to offend but some will not like this post.

Robin Williams died this week.  It seems that he was suffering from 'depression' and may have been aware of the early onset of Parkinson's Disease as well as facing financial bankruptcy.  So he took his own life.

That is sad.  Forget all the stuff about his being a great comedy actor and comedian, his family have lost a father and a husband.  As said, earlier, that is truly sad and if they wanted them, the family would have my condolences.  I would offer them the same as I do for any death of which I hear.  These are heartfelt but some might say only cursory as in many cases I do not know the deceased, however, as a Christian I pray they and Robin Williams rest in peace and rise in glory.

That's almost it from me, as regards the suicide of Robin Williams, however, I do have something further to say about the reaction to his death.

This was out of all proportion.  Yes he was a funny man and as said, his passing is a loss for his family and perhaps the world is a little bit more of a sadder place, without his presence but a sense of proportion is called for.

On the days before his death, when he was maybe pondering the troubles that ailed him, people were dying in Iraq and in Syria.  Dying really doesn't do it justice.  They were being murdered.  In the case of Iraq, they really doesn't cut it either.  They were being butchered for their beliefs.

They may have had 'depression' like so many people claim to now know so much about, although I think that 'depression' is a 'western' concept.  In the Yezidi and Christian villages of Iraq, they might feel 'down' about their crops or the marriage prospects of their children or a thousand and one other mundane things but in those villages, they just had to get on with life.  $500 an hour shrinks (or however much these charlatans charge) aren't thick on the ground in rural Iraqi areas.

One of those thousand and one other things which might have caused mood swings was likely to be, will ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) as they now style themselves, come to our village.  If they come will my neighbors denounce me as a non-Muslim or rather as a non-Sunni Muslim, since even Shias are not safe.

The existential threat posed by IS, carries with it the ability to focus the mind.  Not on deep and dark inner worries and mis-givings.  No, but onto how do I survive?  How do I get my family to safety?  The introspection suggested by depression is a luxury that much of the world, and certainly those facing beheadings in Iraq, simply cannot enjoy.

So, to the reaction.  The media was immediately flooded with tributes from so called celebrities bemoaning the loss of a comic 'genius'.  Then these tributes were re-cycled and re-cycled.  None of these 'celebs' paused to mention the true tragedy that was occurring at the same time, on the other side  of the world.  None thought to question whether the drug abuse that Robin Williams had previously admitted to, might have messed-up his mind so much that suicide could seem like a reasonable way out of whatever was troubling him.  None thought to ponder, how many people, right there in the USA, might decide that the debt burden that they and their children have is just so great that they can't go on and so take their own lives?  That this debt or other troubles was such a 'downer' that they felt depressed enough to end it all?  I am sure that there were people hearing of Williams' death and thinking to themselves 'Williams should have tried to walk a mile in my shoes.  Williams should have had to worry about from the next meal was coming or how the hospital bills, for Grandma, could be paid.  Then Williams would know what depresses me!'

And if that person was on a mountainside in Northern Iraq and heard of Williams' death, whether that person knew of Williams or not, I believe that the thoughts from the depths of their depression, would not be ones of sympathy but would be ones of 'how do I save my family' .  They would have a sense of perspective.  They would understand that Williams chose to end his life.  They would understand that they and their fellow Christians or Yezidis have only two choices  - flee and maybe die, or stay and certainly die.

When people mourn Robin Williams, I trust that they will also remember the thousands of people that are being murdered in Iraq and Syria.  People that don't have a global fan-base.  People that were  content to live a 'simple' rural life, far away from the glamour and glitz and the psychiatrist's couches of Hollywood. 

Before I get accused of speaking ill of the dead, in respect of Williams and venting my anger and such against him, let me be clear.  I do feel angry about Williams' death but more so about the reaction to this death.  President Obama spoke eloquently about the death of this individual.  If only he had spoken so about the thousands that are dying elsewhere.  Dying not at their own hand but at the hands of fanatical butchers.  I feel angry that the media make such a spectacle of the death of someone like Williams, who chose to take his own life or of the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, who effectively did the same by overdosing on a cocktail of drugs and yet say so little and show even less of the horror being inflicted on others because of their beliefs.  Do we say that because these people have chosen their god, that their murder is somehow equated to a suicide? 

When did we get to the state that the death of a celebrity out ranks the genocide of a people?  

If you've read this far, you perhaps understand the lack of perspective that has been shown by the media and politicians.  If you agree with me, please pass this blog onto others and help raise awareness of the genocide of Christians (and Yezidis)  that is happening in Iraq.  Today there are no Christians in Mosul, the city that was recently overrun by IS, for the first time in 2,000 years!

America's problem

More accurately, the problem with conservatives in America.

As a Brit looking in from the outside, it seems to me that America is on a dangerous path and the fault really lies with American conservatives.

I don't blame President Obama and his socialist fellow travelers - Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, Reid, Blasio, etc. - they are only following the agenda that all socialists follow.  Their programme is running according to schedule and form.  Students of post-WWII European history will see the familiar pattern of subversion from within.  Take over educational/teacher training colleges, promote public service (sic) unionization, push minority issues even against the overwhelming wishes of the majority, promote policies that facilitate the breakdown of 'traditional' families and values, make previously abnormal behaviour the new norm and over-favour such, over-arching this, push the 'state' into every nook and cranny of daily life with either some kind of welfare or regulation or law.

So, why blame the American Right?  Well frankly because of the lack of focus.

Look at the recent shenanigans around the US budget.  The deal that was worked out - a bi-partisan solution, we are told - sees an infinitesimally  small reduction in overall spending but some of this falls on military veterans.  To my mind this breaks a covenant that the US has had with its service personnel - you go and fight for us and we will take care of you.  So we have Republican presidential hopeful (surely not still?) Rep. Paul Ryan, assisted by Republican Speaker John Boehner, pushing a bill that punishes military retirees.  Think back 30 years or so and consider if any sordid backroom deal, whose members included Republicans, would have had this as part of the package. 

Frankly speaking, the Democrats really don't need to push their agenda too aggressively, when their supposed opponents do such a good job on their behalf.  And why do Ryan, Boehner et al do the Democrats job for them?  Because they do not serve America, in spite of their oaths.  They serve themselves.  It is all about re-election and accumulating personal power and wealth.

WARNING TO REPUBLICANS - In any Bi-Partisan agreement you and your supporters (and your country) are being fooled.  Bi-Partisanship is part of the process by which the socialists incrementally achieve their goals.  They use this to move the discussion in their desired direction and keep on doing so.  When you meet someone 'half-way' on something, then they are closer to their goal and you further from yours!

Think about the recent government shutdown - who won that?  The Democrats did.  Obama didn't give an inch and the Republicans folded.  In saying Republicans I refer to the elected Republicans.  I don't believe that Republicans in the country supported Boehner's capitulation nor do they support Ryan's shabby 'deal'.

So back to focus.

What are the 'hot' issues for Republicans, just now?  Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, is certainly up there and the homosexual lobby have taken a knock back on this one but they and their bigoted types, will be back!  Hillary Clinton's abdication of responsibility for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, is there as well.  Obamacare, with its almost daily new failures, is the gift that keeps on giving (consider that more people lost insurance coverage on 1/1/14 than managed to get the more expensive Obamacare cover and you will see what I mean).

What doesn't seem to be hot?  How about, the economy?  As in jobs, as in money in people's pockets.  How is this not the issue that unites the American 'right' and provides the single focus on which the 'right' can campaign?  $ Billions have been pumped into the economy but unemployment remains high.  Those 'shovel ready' projects weren't as 'shovel ready' as people were led to believe.

In my darker, conspiracy-theory moments, I keep wondering if the Obama administration isn't quite pleased that they have these different mini 'scandals' going on as the opposition is spread thin and their inept handling of these issues and the economy is masked because the 'fire' from Republicans is not concentrated.

So, to borrow the phrase from Bill Clinton, 'it's the economy, stupid!'  Republicans shouldn't allow themselves to get side-tracked by these other issues - yes, I do know they are important but if Republicans don't get the numbers elected to Congress then all of the commentary and tweeting and rallies will not change things, one bit.

At the same time, Republicans need to hold candidates to account and select and elect real Republicans.  

Real Republicans?  So no RINOs (Republicans in name only).    From my perspective, those of the Tea Party persuasion most closely fit the bill.  Candidates that understand that you cannot treat with leftist Democrats.  That understand that the political spectrum must be shifted significantly to the right, just  in order to recover the advances that have been made by the socialists in recent years.

I am afraid that I include the G.W Bush era in the left-sliding times.  Former President Bush was 'right' on foreign issues but was not focused enough on US domestic issues and so allowed the leftist slide, that started under his father and accelerated under Clinton, to continue. 

So my message for American conservatives is focus on a single issue that affects all Americans - the economy - don't follow the path taken by the UK Conservatives where pandering to minority groups, in an effort to appear more 'reasonable' has led them to promote same-sex marriage and continue to allow the 'state' to grow and to be dictated to by unelected European Commissioners (or commissars, is perhaps more accurate).

Remember, once the true 'right' have power, then you can pursue the impeachment of Obama and the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the repeal of the hated Obamacare, until then the single most important task on which to focus, is getting the right people, selected and then elected.

Questions for Americans

Two quick questions for Americans.

Between Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela, who of these was the greatest friend and ally to the USA?

Of these two, who did the President of America most honour when they passed on, by personally attending a memorial service or funeral.

Oh, and a quick, third question, of these two, Mandela and Thatcher, which was a firm supporter of capitalism and, along with Ronald Reagan, brought about the downfall of the Soviet bloc and which was a former (some say always) 'card carrying' member of the Communist Party and would under today's definitions be called a terrorist?

Answers on postcards to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and your local Congressman.

The UK may no longer hold much sway in the world but we do remember when we are slighted.  At least I sincerely hope that we do, when the present incumbent passes on.

Before everyone jumps on me for verbally shooting at Nelson Mandela, let me declare that I truly believe he was a special person.  I am sure I could never have found the forgiveness that he showed to his captors.  No my 'beef' is with the Obama administration and another example of how they treat their friends. See here for further  http://bit.ly/1fny5ka

Presidential conspiracy in the US

As a non-American, looking in from the outside, I detect a conspiracy surrounding President Obama.

Much as I dislike the individual and believe he is dangerous for both the USA and the free world, this isn't a conspiracy led by the former community organizer - at least I don't think it is, that's the trouble with conspiracies, you just never know!

No this is about what has happened to the American media.  Have they been so infiltrated by socialists that none have the courage to see that the emperor has no clothes?

Consider:

Benghazi September 11, 2012 - the American consulate is stormed by an armed and intent on murder mob of Islamist fanatics.  Those inside call for help.  US  military forces are available but are ordered to stand-down.  The commanding general balks at this order and is relieved of command.  Four American citizens are brutally abused, including it is said, sexually, and murdered.  One of the four is the US Ambassador to Libya.

The IRS is found to be targeting right of centre groups, and their members, such as the Tea Party.  Initiating tax audits of these people and clearly on the grounds of their political opinions.  In the ensuing investigation, news of profligate spending and waste, by the IRS, surfaces.

John Kerry and President Obama hail a temporary agreement with Iran, as a victory. This agreement allegedly requires Iran to stop uranium enrichment but post the announcements, it seems that some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are not included.  What is included though is that sanctions are lifted on $8 billion that was previously frozen.  So Iran gets what it wants - money and other relief from sanctions that were hurting (as was intended) - and they don't have to actually give-up anything for it!

And then there is Obamacare.  Some say it should be properly called the Affordable Care Act but since it isn't affordable, there is no additional care, it can be seen to be an act, as many conservative commentators have noted.

One of the things that the USA boasts about, is it's technological prowess.  No, really!  So, think about that.  President Obama gave the 'techies' and 'geeks' three years to come up with a website and registration system.   They didn't just fail, they failed abysmally.  Three years and $100s Million and it simply didn't work - and by all accounts still doesn't.  That wouldn't be a problem though because Obama said people could keep their old policies and such, except.....  they can't.  People would not see premium increases or be forced into this or that but...... they are!

There are other instances, such as the NSA spying on Americans, reading their e-mails and listening into their phone calls, as well as spying on supposed allies  (see here:  http://bit.ly/1fny5ka )  and the shameful shutdown of WWII memorials during the government shutdown but you should have the picture by now.

So, how does this super-teflon coated President get away with it?  The answer is because the main stream media is blind, deaf and dumb.  Even now, as some Democrats try to distance themselves from the train wreck that is Obamacare, the media still pushes the 'party line' from the White House.  Okay, you would expect Claire Shipman, ABC senior correspondent, to steer clear of embarrassing the White House Press Secretary, she is, after all, married to the same Jay Carney but what of the rest of the press corps?  Where are the putative Woodwards and Bernsteins?  Or do they only come out against Republicans?

I don't believe that Twitter and other social media is ready to replace the MSM but where else can an American go to hear something that isn't what amounts to propaganda from President Obama?   What has made the media, that were always so savagely anti- George Bush, now so toothless and un-enquiring?  Remember the outright lies put out by the media about Obama's predecessor?  Those are easier to recall than the half-hearted eventual apologies or retractions.

No the Left, and take it from one that has suffered under the yoke of UK socialism, make no mistake,  Obama is a true Socialist and he has fellow 'card-carriers' throughout the media.  The Democrats and the MSM are so in bed together (sometimes literally) that even the complete 'green' bilge spouted by Al Gore goes unchallenged as does his oh so blatant, hypocrisy.

So here's a prediction.  Watch, read and listen to the media in the coming weeks if you like or just know now, that the following headlines will provide adequate coverage of the next round of budget discussions.  'GOP, fearing Tea Party extremists, obstructs resolution of budget issues.'  or 'President Obama stands firm on budget in face of anti-progressive elements in division riven GOP'

2014 is just around the corner and presents Americans with an opportunity to start to take back their country.  Know though that this will be a very hard process.  The socialists move one yard to the left and then the 'right' manage to move one foot back to the right but America is still two foot further to the left, after this dance.  It's time for the 'right' to talk direct to the people and bypass the biased MSM and to move two or more yards to the right - incremental steps to sanity leaves a country too long in a state of madness.

Finally, consider that you won't read anything like this in the American media so make sure that you protect the freedom that Twitter allows us. 

America and the C word

Don't worry your grace (@His_Grace) I haven't gone all Channel 4 on everyone, read on.

If we are to believe Edward Snowden, any thoughts we commit to all kinds of electronic communication are being monitored and then read by the NSA in America.  I guess that one of the goals of a blogger is to get their message out to the widest possible audience, so that everyone can bask in their sagacity (haha!) so maybe because this has that edgy use of the C word (trust me, don't worry) in the title and mentions the NSA and America, perhaps this post won't bomb!

So, the C word.  The word that President Obama and his advisers have banished from their vocabulary.  The word of course is coup as in a military  coup d'état  and the Obama administration is tying itself into all sorts of knots because it doesn't want to be seen to be supporting a military C word but thinks that the military C word in Egypt is a good thing because it rid America of a fractious government in the Middle East.  The administration doesn't want to use the C word because to do so, would call into question the continued giving of aid to Egypt.  Heavens, it might even mean that those F-14 fighters may need to have their delivery delayed!

It is to America's shame that Obama and his administration are conniving in the deposing of a democratically elected leader.  Having touted the benefits of 'democracy' for so long, they support the overthrow of the democratic result, simply because the answer given by the Egyptian people, was not to America's liking.

This reminds me so much of how Europe and the EU operates.   Referendums are conducted and when the people vote the 'wrong way',then the relevant government is told to go away and ask again until they get the 'right' answer!  Incidentally it is  also to the shame of the EU for their tacit support of the C word but Europe is pretty much irrelevant on the World's stage, these days, so let's not make too big a thing of it.

What is happening in Egypt is a coup - there I said it!  Pure and simple.  My view of the initial uprising in Egypt was that this too was a coup but the military needed to mask their actions with the cloak of 'democracy'.  Well that cloak has well and truly slipped!

Make no mistake.  I am no fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood.  By all accounts he and  they have demonstrated economic incompetence on a grand scale (but then not many governments would be safe if that was a criteria for overthrow) and perhaps more worryingly, their is strong evidence that they have promoted anti-Christian activities against the Coptic Church and other Christians.

However, he was democratically elected.  He has now been deposed and replaced by a military-appointed puppet, who is promising new elections, 'soon'.  What happens if these elections again produce the 'wrong' result?

The 'problem' with Egypt and so many of these new 'democracies' isn't so much about representative participation or however you define democracy, it is about a lack of capitalism.  People really don't care too much about votes - it comes down to basics - food on the table and  a roof over the head.  Socialism in all its forms doesn't deliver that.  Democracy doesn't deliver that.  Capitalism is the only system that will deliver that.  Democracy is a 'nice to have' that comes afterwards. 

That said, if you push democracy, and America and the West does, then you have to stand by the outcomes.  However odious the new government may be, they shouldn't be overthrown by the military.  Yes, I know that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected and yes , I still wouldn't advocate overthrowing his regime.

And so to Syria.  Not a bastion of democracy but somewhere else where America and Europe believe that their own special brand of interference will produce positive results.  How are they going to interfere  Well the talk now is providing arms to the 'right' insurgent/rebel groups.  Who was it said that madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  The absolute last thing that the Middle East needs right now, is more weapons (indeed this is something that they haven't needed for a very long time).  The West's track record of picking 'winners' is very poor (can you think of a right choice?  Libya wouldn't be a good answer!), so why would anyone think that suddenly these governments are going to get it right.

Maybe America and Europe should consider that perhaps the reasons that they are so loathed in much of the Middle East is precisely because of their hypocrisy (democracy but only if it gives the  right type of government) and their trying to make countries in their own image (picking winners).  Maybe it is time for America and Europe to back-off and let the Middle East sort themselves out.  Yes it will be bloody and many people will die but having done such a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan does the West have any kind of template that they can hold up to show the success of 'democracy'?

Is the new policy on Syria some kind of surrogate for the abject failure of Obama's policy on Iran.  All that 'positive engagement' and 'open hand' doesn't seem to have slowed down their nuclear arms development, one bit.  So, try to put a 'friendly' in charge in Syria and take away an Iranian ally?  If that is the strategic aim it presupposes that the Syrian disaster will produce something that will be to the West's liking.  I have the strongest possible doubts, that it will.

What does the USA get out of Syria intervention

What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?

Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help?  These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values.  Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria.  There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks.  These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy.  The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban.  Is this really what America wants?

Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so.  How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance?  Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it?  Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away?  How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?

What is the end game here?  Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.

The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.  The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.

In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels.  The upshot?  The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.  Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country. 

The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing.  The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability.  Does Obama hate Israel that much?

And then there is Turkey.  Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted.  Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.

Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong.  You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted.  Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week.  The French were saying these weeks ago.  OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ...   Or is that just me being cynical?
 

Changing views on EU

They say that a week is a long time in politics, so the time I have had to reflect since my blog on May 4  - here -  http://bit.ly/15fBz73  should be ample to overcome any claims of hypocrisy.

Here goes.

Not just in the above blog but also in earlier ones, I have strongly suggested that David Cameron needs to have a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU and to have it in this parliament.  In some ways that would still be my preference but considering the politics of the matter - and the mathematics - I am coming around to seeing why that isn't possible and perhaps maybe not even desirable.  Don't worry, the Europhiles have got to me and compromised me into changing my fundamental opinion of the flawed state that is Europe.

The Lib Dems are wedded to Europe.  As a party, this is probably the only unifying policy for them.  On other issues the leadership gets pulled between leftist policies and loony leftist policies but Europe?  No, they all row in the same direction.  To be clear that is row as in a boat not as in an argument!

Labour faces the biggest dilemma over Europe and I sense that David Cameron understands this and is in fact, banking on it.   The dilemma is that many voters are opposed to continuing as a member of the EU, as it is currently constructed.  Maybe they don't all want to leave but many want the rules re-written.  UKIP and the BNP both inhabit the ground where that is most vitriolically espoused - anti-immigration.  Possibly the psephologists and focus group handlers would dispute this but I don't believe that it is only white and blue collar Tories where UKIP's policies resonate.  My life experience suggests that 'natural' Labour supporters would be as anti-immigration as these Tories sometimes appear.  One piece of evidence to mull over - in spite of the economic situation (more on that in a moment), Labour supporters didn't exactly come out in their droves to vote in the recent elections.  Nor, in the national opinion polls, can Labour get to a reasonable level of lead or votes.  Getting around 35 to 38% isn't what anyone would call a massive mandate for change!

The BBC and some other media would have it that the 'Europe question' will do for Cameron and that the Tories are split.  I am coming around to the view (and not just because the BBC is usually wrong on most things) that Europe offers an opportunity for the Tories.

The political system in the UK doesn't favour parties like UKIP.  Their local election showing of mid 20%  will most likely not be sustained in the 2015 General Election (my guess is somewhere around 7-8%) but whatever they get the first past the post system just doesn't work for them or for any small party.  UKIP will have some impact in marginal seats but I think this will equally affect all three parties with perhaps just a bit more impact on Lib Dem marginals!.

So how an opportunity?  Well, consider (and I am sure that David Cameron has), at the next election, voters would be faced with a choice between Labour and the Lib Dems - both pushing policies that say, 'we don't believe the people need to be asked about our country's future and its relations with the EU' - and the Tories saying - 'we think that the EU project needs fixing and, if it can't be fixed in a manner that we believe is acceptable, Britain should leave the EU, however, this is far too important a decision for politicians, the choice needs to be made by the people of Britain'.  I know which policy would get my vote. 

Forget anything else about this but remember this - the British have an instinctive dislike of things non-democratic.  They may not bother to vote, but just try taking away their right to vote.  The British look at the EU and see gaping holes where democracy should be representing them and instead they see elsewhere a fat and corrupt elite, lording it over them.  The European way of dealing with tyrannies and out of touch elites is often through revolution, the British way is through the ballot box. 


For the Tories then, keep Europe on the agenda, push and support the Private Member's Bill that enshrines a 2017 referendum and then push the 'we trust the people' line, time after time.  It is a very simple but no less powerful message and one which will find the Labour and Lib Dems, wanting and struggling to say why they do not trust the people.

So, keep that one bubbling away - be thankful that UKIP will also keep it on the boil - but then focus, focus, focus on the economy in a holistic way (sorry Roberto!).  Taxes, welfare education and spending.  Get these under control and keep banging on about the inherited mess.  On the latter the Tories are pushing against an open door.  Any sane person can see that the Brown-inspired and debt-funded party was unsustainable. 

Oh, and on the NHS - go for Labour.  Mid Staffs is the symptom of all that is wrong with the NHS.  Every time Andy Burnham speaks - every time - ask him why he hasn't resigned over the 1,200 deaths - every time.  Fix Labour's central mis-management as the core issue around the NHS.

Not quite a convert to Cameron's coalition but now facing in the same direction, I suppose.

And Mr Cameron, if you read this, a bit more muscular with the Lib Dems, please.  The occasional slap-down won't hurt them or you.  Finally, suggest you start to distance yourself from Obama, he is tainted by Benghazi and the IRS scandals, as will be his second term.

Are Americans rude or

is it just their President?

I ask, following the absence of President Obama from Baroness Thatcher's funeral.  Hillary Clinton also couldn't be bothered to attend nor her successor, John Kerry.  Instead the USA was represented by an embassy flunkey and the most recent former ambassador.

This was shabby behavior.  Unbecoming a country that positions itself as a super-power.  What a way to treat a country, which it is often said, is its greatest ally.   This was Obama at his typical worst. Prior to his election, in 2008, Europeans fawned over him (remember the Berlin rally?) and worshipped at his feet.  Once elected, and having accomplished nothing, he was then awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (more fawning) and yet, for Obama and his administration, Europe is a 'no go' area.

There will be some that try to excuse his absence by referring to the Boston Marathon bombing.  Yes that was a horrific incident and certainly merited Presidential attention but a President needs to think and act a bit more strategic than that.  I suspect that the real reason for his absence was that he wanted to continue to push the gun control agenda and 'twist arms' to do so and, because this very political President only wants to advance his vision of the USA, friends and allies, come a long way behind that goal.

Speaking of Boston, for a moment, I hope that this visitation of terror, in the heart of the city, causes some of its residents to pause and ponder.  Some of the people of Boston were a major source of funding for the IRA back in the 1970s and 1980s, with all of the collection jars in bars throughout the city.  These funds were then used to buy guns, ammunition and Semtex to wreak terror within the UK.  One such bomb, killed 12 year old Tim Parry and 3 year old Jonathan Ball, in Warrington, on March 20, 1993.

Back to President Obama.
We know that the US is 'pivoting' towards Asia Pacific but surely even common courtesy, to say nothing of basic diplomatic skills, would require an elevated level of attendance?  The US needs to pivot towards Asia because, frankly, it needs its money to finance the US debt mountain.  You will note that Europe and the Middle East, including Iran, get little attention from Obama.  Though, in a nod to its southern neighbors, it did send a high-level delegation to the funeral of Hugo Chavez.

Or would it maybe be that Obama was concerned that he wouldn't be the centre of attention?  And that he would have been compared, and very unfavourably, at that, to his predecessor, Ronald Reagan and the good lady, herself?  All I see and hear of Obama, suggests that is a plausible reason.

I sincerely hope that European leaders and Britain's in particular, take note of this highly political snub and file it away and take appropriate reciprocal action, when the occasion arises.

Obama and his administration, shamed America, this week and Europeans, who have a lot more history than the US, also have long memories!

Message for Obama and other Americans

I return to the subject of gun control in America, that I previously wrote about here http://bit.ly/ZKx2Rq

The Obama administration is pushing for tighter controls on guns and bullying people to support this, sickeningly using the poor dead children of Newtown as a bargaining chip.  Who could oppose such legislation?  Who could oppose laws that would mean young ones are not put in such danger again?

Thankfully, a very significant number of Americans are resisting the moral blackmail that Obama and his control freak colleagues are using.

It occurred to me though, that the real killer of children in America isn't the gun but obesity.   We hear some words from Obama but no real action.  How many children have died, during Obama's time in office from gunfire and how many from obesity related illnesses?  How many have, in his time, acquired the diseases that will mar and shorten their adult lives?  Surely, if Obama really cared about America's children, he would be out doing something, every single day.
 
I wonder though if the reason he isn't, is political?

Has he perhaps calculated that the only way to tackle this obesity problem is to take on the largest constituency in America - that is - Parents!

Because, at the end of the day, it is the abdication of responsibility by America's parents, that is a far bigger killer than that Lanza boy in Newtown.

So Mr President, don't go after the NRA and law-abiding citizens.  Don't bother pushing a Medicare or Obamacare package, down the throats of America.  Instead, do the right thing and as aggressively, push America's parents to take responsibility for their children's health and lifestyle.   Don't bother about same-sex marriage, focus on an agenda that puts the health of America's children at its heart.  Since the Democrats are so keen on taxes, tax sugar, tax fat!  Put a large federal sales tax on soda drinks and candy bars and fast food and high sugar cereals etc.  It won't balance your budget but it will likely save more lives than your and Joe Biden's gun legislation.

Newtown, CT

What to say? 

Words to describe the evil that was visited upon this small town will always seem inadequate.  As you will have seen though, that doesn't stop the 'talking heads' jumping to all sorts of conclusions and such.  I guess that includes me!

Also included among these is President Obama who has rushed in to say that 'meaningful action' must be taken.  He is referring to trying to push through some kind of gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown horror.  Don't be surprised!  Like all socialists, Obama looks at all events through a political prism - how can I use this to push 'the agenda' forward?  In this case, how can I put forward a plan for greater state control?  He is aided by the usual suspects such as Diane Feinstein of California.  Surprisingly, there is no rush to say that treatment for mental health should be improved, though one must believe that the killer cannot have been anything but insane!

For Europeans, gun control is 'accepted'  - as in, 'the powers that be' impose it and that's it.  No democracy, no popular vote, just 'we know best'. 

Britain had its own horrific event at Dunblane and then rushed through legislation which had the effect of removing legally registered guns from most law-abiding citizens but not affecting the criminals nor the mentally unbalanced that commit such acts and can always seem to find weapons, when they need them.

Does anyone see the LA gangs giving up their hardware?  Or will it just be the law-abiding people in small, isolated communities, who are then exposed to the gun-toting criminals, who don't give-up theirs?

Now though, is not the time for politics. 

Now we should really reserve our thoughts and prayers for the families that found themselves, with holes in their lives, suddenly appearing last Friday.  I am truly amazed when I hear these people speak.   Their love for the children is obviously apparent but their compassion towards the surviving members of the Lanza family is truly Christian.

Many of the teachers are being hailed as heroes and rightly so, but I also think these suffering parents deserve this accolade for the dignified and spiritual way that they are facing this tragedy.

Keep them and the departed in your prayers.

Politicians - please resist the temptation to intervene!  

The US election - a foreigner's perspective

I can't vote in Tuesday's presidential election in the US but if I could, my vote would go to Mitt Romney.

Why?

Well, on the economy, I just think that Obama really doesn't understand America or Americans. All those Americans that I have ever met are aspirational.  They look at the (failed) European social model and say ' that's not for us, that's not the American way'.  This isn't restricted to WASPs or successful professionals, Americans want success and view it, not as something to be despised but to be admired.

On foreign affairs, what has Obama achieved?  Okay, so he got the Nobel Peace Prize.  Hmmm!  I can't help thinking that that was some kind of tokenism from the Norwegians!  Otherwise, what?  His softly softly approach with Iran?  How has that worked out?  All indications are, that Iran has used the last four years to advance its nuclear capabilities - and I mean its military capabilities.  Africa?  A much vaunted visit to Egypt and a big speech in Cairo, doesn't really cut it (especially since his Cairo speech seems to have fallen on deaf ears).  Asia Pacific?  Well he upset some Europeans when he told them that the future defence focus would be on the Pacific rather than Atlantic but then he proceeded to allow China to run rampant and bully its way through the South China Sea, with America abandoning its allies long the way.

Energy?  All that talk about 'alternative sources' and renewable energy'.  Net result?  Dubious dealings with companies that can only survive on US government backing.

Unemployment?  However you cut the numbers, employment is at the same level as when he took office.  How's that pump-priming working out?  What happened to all of those 'shovel-ready projects' that were just crying out for government (as in US taxpayer) money?

Deficit?  Need I say anything?

So that's Obama then.  What about Romney?

Well, firstly he offers a change and, something that Obama doesn't - a way forward that isn't another wasted four years.

On the economy - tax cuts - that is similar to Obama's quantitative easing but instead of just printing money and bailing out banks, puts the money into the pockets of the US taxpayer.  Or more accurately, doesn't take it out, in the first place!  It isn't just that 'trickle down' works, it's how do you get money being spent in local businesses -  by individuals or by federal or state governments?

Foreign Affairs?  Has a no nonsense approach to Iran.  Unequivocal.  Will not let Iran obtain a nuclear military capacity.  That clarity alone should win him the election!  His stance on China and their managed currency rates as well as their other trade policies are very encouraging. 

Healthcare - repeal of Obamacare will remove an additional tax from ordinary people and give people freedom.  Take a look at social healthcare systems like the failing British NHS - is that really what Americans want?  A vast beast with an insatiable hunger for more and more money?

Energy - Would promote an energy policy that realistically approaches energy independence.  So, doesn't exclude offshore continental shelf deposits and allows the Keystone pipeline from Canada.  Doesn't exclude 'alternative' energies but makes them compete, fairly.


So, Romney for change and hope, Obama for a slide towards the chaos and despair that is Greece.

Obama's shame and poor character

Speaking on Jon Stewart's TV comedy show, President Obama has been reported as categorizing the death of four Americans, at their Benghazi consulate as ' not optimal'.

You think!

The deaths of four servants of the American people isn't 'optimal' .  In seeking to garner the votes of the sneering elite that really don't like America, Obama has shamed his office and his country.

This would always be wrong but given the story of a cover-up that is fast emerging, is especially worrying.

Obama and the White House are struggling to explain why they reduced security at the Benghazi consulate, even after attacks on it, which now seem clearly to have been trial runs, and after a request for ramped-up safety measures.  Also after attacks on a senior British official and the Red Cross.

They are also struggling to explain why they conflated this brutal attack with the anti-Islamic video and initially insisted that this was the outcome of some kind of spontaneous public protest demonstration when it seems clear that this was a planned and well executed attack by terrorists.

Now the story (from the White House) is that this was always known to be a terrorist attack and they claim they said so (the evidence is extremely flimsy and based on making the stretchiest use of the English language and the use of a couple of words out of hundreds spoken the day after the horrific events).

Consider though that this is the only evidence, nothing more was said about 'terror;' for two weeks.  Indeed, this attack on Americans was so riveting that President Obama didn't see the need to cancel a fundraiser on the other side of the country and remain in the White House to deal with this.  No he went to Nevada and cashed in!

Now we see people from the administration being sacrificed to save Obama.  However, Hillary Clinton has already stepped in front of the bus and so now there is no one else, except for Obama himself. 

Don't hold your breath though!  Europeans know that leftists never take responsibility or blame and as Obama has dragged the USA towards a European 'social' model, that is one trait that he and his followers have swiftly adopted.

As polling day looms, the key issue around the election is now moving to one of character and integrity - that is the honesty of Obama - rather than the economy and America's debt and deficit 'habit'.

As a 'Brit' I cannot vote in the US elections but if I could, I know, absolutely, that Obama's character could not allow me to vote for him, leave alone all his other dangerous policies.