Let America Be America Again

Great new ad by Scott Brown.  If I were Romney, I'd ask to replace the last set of clips from Brown to Romney at the end and I'd run it nationally!  It shows not only how far Obama is disconnected from the ideas that made America great, but also how far he is from other Democrats including Clinton and even Carter!  Great ad!

Conservatives Can Relax: Trump Isn't Running

The announcement that all sane people on the American right were waiting for has finally arrived; Donald Trump is not running for President of the United States. Such an announcement has not come a moment too soon, and there are many conservatives breathing a huge sigh of relief.

It was always tempting to dismiss Trump as a joke candidate from the beginning who never had any chance of gaining the Republican nomination. This may or may not be true, but it doesn’t mean that Trump did not pose any danger to a Republican victory in 2012. He had already caused a great deal of damage by first pretending to speak for American conservatives, and then going off on a wild goose chase for Obama’s birth certificate; making conservatives look like a bunch of conspiracy believing loons. The media had lapped up the sideshow, and it seemed that Trump would take the spotlight from any other candidate until he was defeated at the primaries early next year.

By that time however, it could have been too late. It seemed like Trump was set to also go after Obama’s education records in order to prove that the President was not smart enough to have gone to Harvard, and that he was therefore a recipient of affirmative action policies. Even if such statements were true, it would hardly reflect badly on Obama (he didn’t ask to receive special treatment) and regardless of the outcome the issue would be used against conservatives to demonstrate that Republicans were more concerned with side issues than with the real problems facing the country.

Trump represents one of two paths that the Republicans can go down for 2012. In football terms, they can either play the man or the ball; and Trump would represent trying to play the man. Trump is certainly not alone in wanting to attack Obama instead of the issues; with other candidates such as the irritating Michelle Bachman standing strong with a fair amount of Tea Party support should she choose to run. Such a path is doomed to end in failure. Although his nastier side has come out over the last year, Obama is still seen by many as a likeable guy, and his personal popularity ratings are much higher than his ratings on the issues – which remain stubbornly low.

It is on the issues where the Republicans can win big. This has been proved already; the 2010 midterms barely made any personal references to Obama at all, and focused almost entirely on the economy. It resulted in annihilation for the Democrats at the polls, and one of the biggest swings in United States political history. A similar swing for the Presidential Elections in 2012 would not only hand the Republicans the Presidency, but give them a landslide as well.

Obama is not a steady President. Despite figures in the media telling us that Obama would receive a massive boost from the death of Bin Laden, there has been very little of this, and Rasmussen actually reports a drop in approval for Obama over the last week. With gas prices at a very high level, 1 in 6 Americans on food stamps, Obamacare extremely unpopular, and unemployment stubbornly refusing to go down, Obama’s go to excuse of blaming Bush is wearing thin and will not carry him into 2012. It is on the issues where Obama is weak, and he has run out of ideas.

In a generally conservative country like America (where Obama’s ideas were never particularly popular), the Republicans only need to make sure that they have a candidate that will draw attention to the issues, and also to Obama’s failure to deliver anything but warmed up socialism. They therefore need to pick a solid, upstanding candidate with no hang ups, strange beliefs (nothing weird on evolution, please), or obsessions with birth certificates and college transcripts. If they can pick someone who can stick to the issues, and not get drawn into conspiracy theories and personal attacks, then 2012 could seal Obama’s fate as a one-term President, and 2013 could usher in a fresh era of conservatism in America.

Should the Republicans fail to do this, Obama will not need to win the 2012 election – the Republicans will lose it on their own.

How Obama Went From Hero to Zero in a Week

On Monday 2nd of May it was not looking cushy for the American right.  Yes, along with the rest of America they celebrated the death of global terrorist Osama Bin Laden, but politically they had taken a significant beating.

Only a few days before the death of Bin Laden was announced, the White House had revealed the long version of President Obama’s birth certificate, effectively ending conspiracy monger Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions.  While many on the right (myself included) were thankful that it finally killed off this nonsensical obsession with Barack Obama’s birthplace, it also meant that the entire American right were tarred with the “conspiracy theory” brush – even though the birthers only represented a minority of right-wingers.

The announcement of the death of Bin Laden only made the birther issue worse.  The narrative became that while the right-wing were thumbing through copies of Obama’s “Dreams of My Father” to find evidence that he was a closet Kenyan, Obama was off focusing on bigger issues such as killing the world’s number one terrorist.  Not only did the right look defunct thanks to its loony fringe, but Obama had overcome his reputation of being useless on foreign policy by killing the man that George W Bush had been searching for since 2001.

Immediately, commentators in both American and the UK were drooling over Obama’s prospects for re-election, claiming that his boost in the polls would be enormous, and that the 2012 election was all but over.  Yet a week later, no-one is saying that anymore, and the boost in the polls has (depending on whose polls you read) been either non-existent, or a small jolt that no pollster expects to last until November 2012.  A recent Gallup poll stated that 95% of respondents stated that the death of Bin Laden would not change who they’d vote for.  So what happened?

The first thing that went wrong was that Obama tried to do what he usually does – make himself the hero.  So instead of praising the men and women on the ground, and those who had been doing intelligence on Bin Laden for years, Obama’s announcement speech was filled with continual references about himself and self-congratulatory remarks about his administration.  People like applauding for an actor on stage, but are less likely to do so when the actor starts applauding himself as well.

Also, the blatant hypocrisy of Obama trying to take sole credit of this feat (along with the victory tour to Ground Zero) was fully exposed when it was revealed that the information that found Bin Laden was obtained at Guantanamo Bay (which Obama wants shut down) using waterboarding (which Obama banned) back in 2007, when Obama wasn’t even in office.  Trying to take credit for something that was achieved by methods that he expressly condemned has rightly struck many Americans as trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.

This childish display of taking credit for other people’s work (notably that of President George W Bush, who had to fight tooth and nail against lip trembling lefties like Obama in order to keep such effective methods in place) has been followed up by a laughable show of incompetence from the White House in providing information.

First we were told Bin Laden used his wife as a shield, then he didn’t, then he was armed, then he wasn’t, then he made an act of aggression, then he didn’t, then it was a kill order, then it wasn’t, then it was again, then they were going to release a picture, then they were definitely going to release a picture, then they definitely weren’t going to release a picture.  Even a political junkie like myself still cannot make out exactly what happened in that compound.

This isn’t just about information though, it is about how the Obama administration has been trying to both celebrate and cover up this action at the same time.  The truth is clear; Obama doesn’t like this and neither do the left.  From arch-leftists in Britain such as Ken Livingstone and the Stop the War Coalition to the usual leftist cronies in America such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, we have seen condemnation after condemnation as to how this action was carried out.

Don’t be mistaken; if this was a Republican President, Obama would be amongst those howling in agony at the thought of Bin Laden being “murdered in cold blood”, wailing about his human rights and the abandonment of “our common values of justice.”  Yet because he is President and his numbers were falling, he has had to become part of the American jubilation and patriotism that he finds so distasteful.

On that first day he was fine, but since then his attempt to balance his hard-left credentials with taking the credit for what was essentially a right-wing act performed predominately by other people, has made him seen weak, confused and hypocritical.

Back to business as usual for President Obama

The Left's "Alternative" Has Backfired in America

This week’s announcement by leading rating agency Standard and Poor’s that it has changed its outlook for the United States from “stable” to “negative” is abysmal news both for America, and also the British left.


The announcement – that essentially states that there is a one in three chance that the USA could lose its much valued AAA credit rating within two years – is a stinging condemnation of President Barack Obama’s refusal to make any significant spending cuts and instead to spend even more than his predecessor. Despite a handful of cuts passed through the House of Representatives last week, they look insignificant in the face of other legislation such as the $1 trillion entitlement package known as Obamacare. The message from S&P is clear: the US leadership is not serious about dealing with its deficit and debt, and therefore is putting its economy at significant risk.


For America to lose its AAA rating would be disastrous. To know this, one only needs to look at the way the market reacted when the announcement that America might lose its AAA rating was made: US government bond prices fell alongside the S&P 500, gold prices jumped to a new record of $1,496, and the dollar fell sharply against the euro and the pound. One shudders at the thought of the untold damage it would do to the American economy if they were actually to lose the AAA rating.


Britain on the other hand is judged quite well by Standard and Poor’s. Despite suffering a recession twice as severe as that of the US, the UK is praised for being on a credible fiscal consolidation plan that “sets the country’s general government deficit on a medium-term downward path, retreating below 5% of GDP by 2013.” Simply put, George Osborne is doing the right thing, and Britain is on the right track.


Not only is the praise of Tory policy bad for the British left, but the condemnation of the Obama Administration’s economic policy is also a condemnation of the so-called “alternative” that many on the British left have been calling for in recent months. Obama’s pseudo-Keynesian economic policies of tax and spend are exactly the same as those being called for by senior left-wing politicians in this country, and Obama’s programme has been specifically held up as the example to follow by both Ed Balls and Ken Livingstone.


The ludicrous Obama policy of spending oneself out of recession has backfired spectacularly and yet is the policy that is still advocated in Britain by left-wing groups such as the Labour Party, the Socialist Worker Party, and unions such as the TUC. Their “alternative” is being played out in America, and is bringing the once strong leader of the free world to its knees.

Had Britain followed this outdated form of economics – which was the reason our recession was so brutal in the first place – then we would not only be in the same precarious situation in which
America now finds itself, but it would be even worse as for smaller nation like Britain that would be less able to absorb the shock of the consequences of a drop in credit rating.


The left’s economic policies have been wrapped up in fluffy language and good intentions. Unfortunately, economic reality takes little notice of either of these two things, and this warning shot fired by Standard and Poor’s should wake those who thought our deficits and debt were low priorities out of their slumber. If Britain wishes to be open for business once again, and begin rebuilding its once strong economy, it must continue along the line of cuts as it is doing. Should it fail to do so, it will follow its allies across the pond into another economic crisis. We must not allow left-wing groups here to convince us to drag us off our present course.

Cameron's Leadership on Libya is Humiliating for Obama and America

Cameron speaks, Obama just watches

In a typical Anglo-American relationship, Britain and America stand side by side in the face of international danger, but with America standing as the bigger brother.  Yet with the Obama/Clinton incompetence over the Libyan situation, David Cameron has had to take the lead and direct the international community to fulfill its moral responsibilities.

The lack of voice from the Obama administration has meant that in this version of the Anglo-American relationship, it is not enough to just say that Britain has changed to the role of bigger brother, and America has reverted to the role of smaller brother.  Instead, Obama has reduced America to a helpless child that needs to be carried around by adult, responsible Great Britain.  The world is noticing.

Do not get me wrong on this, I do not believe that America lacks either the will or the resources to be a world leader, and to act in a strong, bold way on the crisis in Libya - it is just that its current leaders have deliberately chosen not to.  Obama is an old school 1970's pacifist, and hates the idea of America being the leader in any international conflict, even if it is a multilateral intervention.  He does not want to spend any money on helping freedom prosper throughout the world - he is too busy inventing new welfare plans back home!

Other countries have the luxury of being quiet for a while on international affairs - America does not.  America is known for being both the home and the defender of freedom.  As much as trendy lefties like Obama hate this role for America, the fact is that most people in the world want America to act like this, especially those under the iron fist of tyranny.  America's silence on this crisis in Libya is deafening as a result.

Although we certainly cannot be expected to intervene in every issue of human rights abuses all over the world, the fall of Gaddafi would be an enormous victory for the West.  Not only would the fall be a coup for Britain and America, it is vital that a good, pro-Western leadership replaces him, and it is for that reason that the West needs to guide this revolution in a way that will suit our nations' interests.

This silence from the Obama Administration on this issue is contrasted by the strong voice of British leader David Cameron - not known for his hawkish attitude towards foreign policy.  For the first time since the outbreak of World War II, it is Britain, not America that is leading on an international crisis.  Yet this does not show the strength of Britain, for Britain has very limited defence resources at the moment.  Instead it shows the weakness of America under Obama, and this sends out very clear messages to both America's allies, and to its enemies.

This crisis represents the fall of America as the international leader, and what is so tragic is that this fall has nothing to do with the might, the power, or the will of the United States as a whole.  Instead, its fall is solely due to the moral cowardice, and the outdated leftism, of the Obama administration that is forcing the nation to abandon its principles, its allies, and its status as the leader of the free world.

The British Left's Betrayal of America

Here is my latest article for The American Thinker, published late last week. It covers the Wikileaks revelations that reveal that Britain collaborated with Libya in order to get the Lockerbie Bomber released on compassionate grounds.  I am of course not happy at this news.  The article can be found in its entirety here.

Since then however, another story has come along and blown it out of the water - it appears that under the START treaty, President Obama has agreed to disclose British nuclear secrets to the Russians.  Again - shocking, but not surprising.  Obama has never hidden his hatred of Britain, and so for him to throw us Brits under the bus for political expediency should surprise no-one.

In many years to come, when people write the history of the Anglo-American relationship, surely they will look at this and see the lowest moment.  I cannot see how the UK-US relationship can sink any lower right about now.  With the most anti-British President in the White House, and an anti-American nut job as Deputy Prime Minister in Britain, those of us who care about the relationship between Britain and America can only look to the future and hope that things will get better in a couple of years.

The State of the Union and Obama's Game of Risk

Obama’s State of the Union address revealed a failure to understand the role that risk plays in the free market, meaning that his administration will only create unsustainable bubbles, and not successful businesses.

We are being told by the mainstream media that Obama’s State of the Union address was one in which he flexed his free market credentials.  The HuffPo’s Rachel Maddow even went so far as to describe the address as a “prayer to the free market”.  There can be no doubt that we were supposed to draw this conclusion - Obama spoke favorably of corporate profits, thriving small businesses, competition, innovation and even Google and Facebook (see how “hip” he is!)  Specifically, Obama spoke of how his administration was investing in small businesses trying to get off the ground.

However, pumping struggling small businesses with taxpayer’s dollars is not the same as being an advocate of the free market.  Despite what our left-wing friends will tell us, the free market is not so much pro-business as it is pro-consumer.  The reason we on the right advocate the free market is because it ultimately benefits the worker, the consumer and society as a whole, by creating wealth, jobs and delivering goods and services efficiently at low cost.

One of the ways the free market encourages the private sector to deliver such efficiencies is through the concept of risk.  The left sees risk as one of those bad and nasty things that they should “protect” vulnerable small businesses from.  Yet as Milton Friedman was so fond of reminding people - the free market is not just a profit system; it is a profit and loss system.  It is through the risk of loss, and the incentives and disincentives that it brings, which encourages efficiency and wise decision making.

In the free market, risk acts as a cleansing fire that burns away poor business ideas, as well as burning away inefficiencies and problems in good ideas.  This is because when the owner of a business bears the risks attached to failure, it encourages him or her to be as efficient as possible and to take care with decision making in order to minimize those risks.    To quote Thomas Sowell, “In a capitalist enterprise, the owner is an unmonitored monitor; self interest takes over from external monitors.”[i] 

Additionally, those wishing to start a business will be all the more careful about their business plan if it is their money that they are investing, as it will be they who will bear the consequences if the plan is not sustainable.  External investors in new businesses will also be careful how they invest their own money, and will either not invest in a bad venture at all, or will spend time examining the plan and pushing the owners to make changes before they take a risk and invest.  This means that the only businesses that start up are those in which people are prepared to risk their money.

The above is fairly simple economics, but for the left, risk brings to mind only negative images of scared small business owners and shattered dreams.  It is for this reason that Obama and similarly minded leftists have been quite happy to “minimize” the risk of starting up a business by providing loans and grants to small businesses that they deem to be politically expedient. 

The State of the Union address was therefore filled with examples of how government had funded the startup of various “green” businesses, such as the business owned by Robert and Gary Allen, who used their government loan to expand and to manufacture solar shingles.  Here in England we already have a whole rainbow of government grants and loans, such as the “Community Development Finance Initiative”, “The Carbon Trust” (if your business is “green”) and the “Mayor’s Economic Recovery Loan Fund” in London.

While these may sound lovely and compassionate, as well as being great ways of encouraging businesses to start up, they are not free market solutions, and are therefore misguided.  For what such loans and grants do is not to minimize risk, but simply to transfer that risk from the business owners and investors to the taxpayer.

This is unfair not only because the taxpayer is forced to bear the risk of loss without the prospect of profit, but also because they have become investors in businesses in which neither the owners nor private sector investors were prepared to put their money.

Also, although it may be wonderful for Robert and Gary Allen that they are selling their solar shingles in the short term, it may not be so lovely for them in the long term.  For if they had failed to attain investment through the usual private sector paths, they may have taken their ideas back to the drawing board and either jettisoned the ideas for better ones, or they may have ironed out the kinks in the current ideas to attract investors.  This would be better for their long-term prospects.

Such a grant is not good for the business (Robert and Gary may be working with a dud) nor is it good for the investing taxpayer – who gains nothing from the risky investment even if that business turns profitable.  The only group it benefits are Obama’s Democrats, who get to pat themselves on the back for encouraging green businesses and jobs, and who will then pat themselves on the back again when they “save jobs” by bailing out the industry after the green bubble they are creating by funding bad businesses eventually bursts.

Ultimately risk is seen by the left as bad as it discourages businesses from starting up.  This is inaccurate – risk only discourages bad or imperfect businesses from starting up.  Obama’s plan for more government funding for businesses is not a free market solution, and it is not pro-business.  All it will do is create unsustainable bubbles that will hurt efficiency, hurt workers, hurt consumers and hurt American society as a whole – and that is a risky plan.

---

[i] T Sowell, Basic Economic: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy (New York: Basic Books 2000) p.75

Another Attempt by Obama to Force Britain into the EU.

Thanks to my fellow Anglo American commentator Nile Gardiner for picking this story up, that has gone almost entirely unnoticed by the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic.  Apparently the Obama administration has started another push to get America's once strongest ally further into the quicksand of the European Union.  This time it is diplomat Louis Susman (American ambassador to the UK) who has been running his mouth off.  In a private meeting with British MEPs this week in the European Parliament, Susman called for a stronger commitment to the failing EU by Great Britain.

"Speaking in parliament on Tuesday, Susman signalled that Washington wants a clearer British commitment to remain in the EU, saying “I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU.

“The US does not want to see Britain’s role in the EU diminished in any way.

“The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU.

Susman, who took up his current post a year ago, added, “This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global challenges facing us, including climate change and security."

Although it is most certainly not unheard of for allies to express opinions on various international issues that effect the other nation, to push for something that every single opinion poll shows that the British public are against is distasteful at best, and at worst it is downright insulting.  America should be supporting its allies, not challenging them at every possible opportunity.

The statement is also quite wrong.  I will ignore the vagueness of "dealing with climate change", as we already know that for the Obama administration the science is unquestionable and "dealing" with the problem involves as much big government as is humanly possible.  However, the idea that if Britain hands over its sovereignty to the hard-left, anti-American, pacifist EU then this will be excellent for "security", then Mr Susman is either delusional or a fool.

When will the Obama administration understand that the EU is not America's friend.  It is filled with American hating lefties, and it doesn't change just because they have a Democrat in office.  If America wants an ally in Europe, then Britain (as always) is its best hope.  Trying to push Britain into the EU will only make Britain weaker, and damage Anglo-American relations, which will ultimately harm America.

While creating an European megastate may fit in with Obama's left-wing view of the world, it will do nothing for America's interests.  It is for this reason that America should oppose this pushy new attitude towards their best ally, and stop Obama from doing even more harm to the national interest of America, and the interests of her allies.

Obama is America's New Sputnik Moment

Apologies for the scarce blogging over the last week  - I have been hit by whatever bug it is that is currently circling around Manchester, and it has pretty much taken me out.  So no podcast and obviously there has been very little blogging over this week.

In my cough syrup haze I ventured to watch the State of the Union/State of Obama address in the middle of night a few days ago.  Perhaps it was the fact that it was nearly 4 in the morning British time by the time he finished, maybe it was the fact that I had mixed Scotch with my Beechams Flu Plus in order to soothe the pain of all the buzzwords and cliches, but all I could think throughout the entire thing was, "What the hell are you talking about you strange little man?"

There are so many things wrong with that speech it would take countless posts to go through them all, but I don't think I would be doing my duty if I didn't refer to the "Sputnik moment".  If you were lucky enough to ignore the SOTU address (as we kool kidz call it on Twitter...yo!) then you may be surprised to learn that Obama's plan to "Win the Future" (the blood curdling slogan for the speech) is for America to have a "Sputnik moment", which should encourage America to fire up and work to something amazing - government sponsored and controlled naturally!

Apart from the obvious fact that he chosen a Communist success story with which to encourage America, he doesn't quite seem to understand what Sputnik represented for America.  Sputnik was a moment that helped America to see how threatened it was, it showed how in danger it was of being destroyed, and how delicate the American dream ultimately was.  Sputnik itself was almost completely useless, it just circled around the globe, making noise until the novelty wore off.  Yet it awoke America out of its post-war slumber and encouraged it to rediscover itself and begin the drive into prosperity - not only with the Apollo program, but in general as well.

It is for this reason that I am going to take Obama's little metaphor and turn it on its head.  America has had its Sputnik moment already - that moment was Obama!  Obama is the useless little machine that buzzes around the globe making lots of useless noise.  Obama is the novelty that everyone is beginning to get bored of.  Sputnik was supposed to be a epoch defining moment, and really it just made noise - just like Obama.  Sputnik was also a product of socialist initiative, as is Obama!

Yet, the more serious lesson of Sputnik is also the lesson of Obama's election and presidency.  Obama's presidency, like the launch of Sputnik, has awoken America to the malaise that it finds itself in.  Obama's failed presidency shows just how far away from the American dream that nation has drifted, how threatened the American dream is once again, and it is through movements like the Tea Party where the response to the Sputnik program - one might call it a  modern Apollo program - is being conducted.

Obama is wrong to suggest that "winning the future" will come from more government "investment" and initiatives.  Instead it will come from Americans reasserting their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and expressing America's greatness through efficiency and private sector prosperity.

The Apollo success was a response to the defeat of America that was represented by the Sputnik moment.  It is for this reason that the modern Apollo movement is well under way in the conservative movement, and it is responding to the defeat represented by the election of Obama - America's modern Sputnik moment.

Left-Wing Policies Have Destroyed Britain's Youth

Take a glance through the British media in a given week, and you will see the usual anti-business, pro-tax rhetoric permeating throughout most of it.  Want some money for a "scheme" or "initiative"?  Tax "the rich" - after all, they have heaps of money that they don't need, right?  Want to blame someone for an economic crisis?  How about those bankers we just love to hate?  Want to campaign against something?  How about those evil corporations who are only out to crush the little guy?

Well, such actions have consequences, and this has been shown in Britain's enormous, devastating youth unemployment.  The figures can be seen in the attached link here. (H/T The Sun)

What surprised me about the figures is just how unsurprised I was.  My nearest city of Salford has a 30.8% youth unemployment, and it is very easy to believe.  The concept of a welfare culture is very much alive in these places, leading to entire welfare towns where initiative, independence etc. are all very much dead.  The welfare culture has been fostered in families for a few generations now, and many of these young people who are unemployed have been born into families where none of the other members have ever worked - having a job is simply foreign to these people.

The tragic thing about all this is that in most cases it is not their fault.  Policies designed to "help" the poor and the unemployed have been the policies that have destroyed their lives the most.  Before these young unemployed people were even born there was already a welfare system in place that does not encourage marriage, that encourages families to live apart and that rewards parents who are on benefits, and punishes parents who do not receive benefits.  Then, we give the child lousy schooling at state run, union controlled, ideologically driven schools that focus on making kids "feel good" as opposed to giving them a proper education.

When they finally do enter the jobs market they find that there are no jobs available, as Britain's high tax, anti-business policies have either scared business abroad, or has discouraged it from even growing in the first place.  Then, if there are any jobs available, the young person will find themselves priced out of a job by high minimum wage laws that by their nature discriminate against the less qualified, meaning they cannot get a job, meaning that they eventually stagnate on welfare.

Yet no major political figure in Britain is challenging this.  Labour wants to push this hard left agenda further, and the present Coalition that is in power seems to be rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic - and even that causes ideologue leftists to scream that the deckchair rearranging will leave the "poor and vulnerable" without a place to sit.

Brits reading this should be depressed - this is our reality.  Americans reading this should be terrified - this is your future under Obama if he is not stopped.

The First Anglo-American Debate Podcast is Now Available!

Finally, after much preparation and screwing around with what seems like a million different accounts and technical thingys, I am pleased to announce the first ever Anglo-American Debate Podcast! (Yehh!!)

The hope is that this podcast will be twice a week, and for about half an hour a podcast.  Please have a listen, and let us know your thoughts and comments.

You can subscribe to it on iTunes by following this link - http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-anglo-american-debate/id414696735


Or you can listen to it here on the website., in which I talk about the left's political opportunism in relation to the Arizona shootings, and also Barack Obama's new found ally - the French.



The link to the podcast can be found below

http://ia700404.us.archive.org/25/items/AdamShawAnglo-AmericanDebatePodcast01-13-11/0112.mp3

Will 2011 be America's Year of Union Discontent?

My latest article has been published today in the American Thinker, and focuses on the fight for freedom from the socialist trade unions.  This is a fight we in Britain have been engaged in for a long time, and I believe that it is set to become the new fight that Americans have to face.

This has proved true looking at the recent chaos in New York caused by the deliberate slow down by union workers in order to force the New York legislature to agree to whatever demands they have come up with this time.  Unfortunately with Obama in the White House, it seems that the unions are only going to becomes more and more powerful, and this gives them only more of a chance to screw the country up.  Americans, trust us, they will screw your country up given half the chance - it is exactly what they did to our country, and are currently trying to do once again!

The article can be found here.

Can We Stop START?? (And Other Tiresome Puns)

If American political commentators were various forms of weapons, Charles Krauthammer would be a drone missile - for every single one of his articles seem to get right to the heart of the matter and obliterates opposing arguments in a single swoop.

His latest article is on the ridiculous START treaty, which seeks to limit the number of nuclear weapons that both the US and Russia possess - the idea being that this will make the world safer as not only does it mean there are less nukes, but that it might also encourage Iran and North Korea to stop playing with nuclear weapons too.  These two arguments are nonsensical, and it one wouldn't be surprised if Mr Obama came out and say "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!"

As Krauthammer points out, it isn't necessarily the symbolism of START which is problematic, but instead more worrying is Obama's ultimate aim that there are no nuclear weapons in existence.  This is completely idiotic for two reasons.

The first is that even if this dream were able to be achieved, this would leave us at an enormous disadvantage against Russia.  The reason the Soviets were so in favour of nuclear disarmament in the 70's and 80's wasn't because they were all peace loving hippy types, but because nuclear weapons were the only area that the United States could beat the Soviets with.  When it came to military numbers, tanks, planes etc, the Russians were well ahead of the game, due to their industrial capabilities and their enormous population which meant they had manpower for both industry and for the army.  If the Cold War had been fought only on the ground,

the Soviets would have won every day of the week!  It was only because the US had advanced nuclear weapons that prevented to Soviets from attacking.  Now, although Soviet Russia no longer exists and modern day Russia is less and less of a threat, it would still be folly to remove that strategic advantage that America has.  Getting Russia to get rid of theirs is irrelevant, as nukes aren't their strength!

Second of all, there is no such thing as a nuclear free world, and if Russia and America abolished their nukes, it would mean that the whole world could be held hostage by the one country that did manage to sneak out a weapon.  Why Obama believes that America not having weapons would do anything but encourage rogue nations to gather nukes is beyond me!   Without America having nukes, it would only remove the deterrent that currently stops smaller nations developing nukes themselves.

START also brings the revisionist history of the Cold War that the left have tried to tell into focus.  The fact is that we won the Cold War by having greater numbers of more powerful nukes and better defences than the Soviets did.  Reagan's plan (that the left hated) worked, and yet we are told that it didn't and that somehow the CND movement that pervaded the 80's were right, when they were in fact wrong.  Until now this has not mattered a great deal, but now we have a President in the White House who buys into this nonsense, and this should worry us.

It is up to the Republicans to put a spanner in the works of this treaty in 2011, or the world will be a less safe place as a result.  To fall back on the obvious pun - it is time to put a stop to START.

Cautiously Delighted about the Midterms

Is it possible to be cautiously delighted?  I'm not particularly sure but that is how I am feeling about last night's astounding win by the GOP in the House and Senate.  Although one might point to the fact that the Senate power didn't officially change hands, everything else is pretty much win-win.

As I said in my previous post as well, the Republicans essentially have power now in both houses, as the Dem side of the Senate now consists of a lot of either moderate, or scared Democrats.  They know that their necks are on the line, and if they vote as a bloc against repeal of healthcare, against tax cuts, or against spending cuts, then they will not be in the Senate after 2012.  A vote for Obama and against the GOP at the moment is electoral suicide, and they know it.  So I wouldn't expect too many problems as long as the GOP stick together in the Senate.  The House of course is about as red as it gets, and considering the Representatives have the power of the purse, we should be slowly saying goodbye to the era of big spending.

However, it is important not to get too excited just yet.  It is especially important not to underestimate Obama.  This guy has a lot of trick up his sleaves, and if you think that he is just going to roll over for the next two years, you have another thing coming.  This guy will play every card, use every tool at his disposal (including the media) to get the American public back on his side.

If the Republicans are not clear about everything they do, or if they abandon their principles, or if they get lazy, Obama will strike.  He might not turn it around by moving to the centre like Clinton, but he could turn it around in other ways that we might not be able to foresee right now.

Don't get me wrong, I am not overestimating Obama either.  The guy is NOT the wonderful, super-intelligent guy we have been told about.  He is a hard-left ideologue and ultimately that always comes back to haunt him.  I don't think that he will go back on his leftist principles by any stretch, but I do think that he will try and control the debate.  For instance, he will spend the next 6 months (trust me on this) saying that "Ok, well, if we want to reduce the deficit, we need much higher taxes!"

He will seek to control the debate, and it will be at this point when the GOP will need to jump in, shout just as loudly as Obama and say "NO!  That doesn't work" and explain why.  If it doesn't, then Obama will chip away at Republican support, both amongst the electorate, and in the House amongst the more 'moderate' Republicans.

The Republicans have the momentum, and unlike two years ago, 2012 is the Republicans to throw away.  If they do what they have promised, control the debate, and stick to their principles, 2012 will  be a success.  But if they implode, then Obama or another Democrat will take advantage, and we will be looking at another 4 years of socialism, instead of a fresh conservative new beginning in 2012.  Now is not the time to relax!

The Yemen Terror Plot

As more and more information is revealed, it is looking like this Yemen scare yesterday was some really serious stuff.  Initially it was perceived as a dry run, but now it is looking like there was some explosive devices on board these jets.

Therefore it is difficult to say that the attack "failed" in the traditional sense of the word - because when terrorists get explosives on to a plane, they have essentially succeeded in one sense.  They may not have succeeded in their ultimate motives, which was to blow up Jewish centres of worship, but they have succeeded to get explosives on jets, which is a real problem.

My intention in making this point is not to criticise intelligence, quite the opposite - they did a great job.  But it shows once again how important Anglo-American relations are.  The Chicago bound jet was stopped in London, plus an additional jet was stopped at East Midlands Airport in England.  Many flights from these extremist areas stop in some part of England to refuel and then move on to America.  If both British and American intelligence organisations are working together, then they can stop a great many of these attempts before they cause a problem.

Therefore, as voters prepare to enter the voting booth on Tuesday evening, they shouldn't discount the role that Anglo-American relations play in keeping both Britain and America safe.  They should therefore remember which party it is that has been putting Anglo-American relations on ice since they gained the Presidency in 2009.

The only way we can prevent a great deal of these attacks is by international collaboration.  While Obama et al may (rightly) be focusing to a large degree on keeping relations good with the government of Yemen, and the Pakistani authorities etc, he should also look closer to home, to the ally who he has been constantly rejecting since he became President.  His country's security depends on it.

Less than a week to go - Remember November

It's all getting very exciting in America.  Less than a week to go until the Republicans storm the House and Senate.  I'm not sure whether the GOP will gain the Senate, but I don't believe that the House is really in doubt.  It will be a massive rebuke to the Obama agenda, and will hopefully cripple it permanently.

But now is not the time to get soft.  We need to keep going, not getting complacent, not doing anything stupid.  This goes for the next week.  Those seats in a toss up can still be won and lost.  This will be a hammering, the only question is how much of a hammering will it be?

If you need some inspiration - take a look at this video, got to love American politics!

Obama and Clinton's Betrayal of an Ally

My latest article is out in The American Thinker today.  It focuses again on Anglo-American affairs, this time on the spending cuts going on in Great Britain, and how the defence cuts have been made worse by the anti-British attitudes of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration.

It aims to show how the Obama Administration has sidelined Great Britain, labelling us a second rate power and nothing special, and that as a result, Britain has started acting like a second rate power.  So, when Hillary Clinton starts moaning that our defence cuts are going to damage our contributions to NATO, she has only herself and her administration to blame.

Britain should not have cut their defence spending by 8%, but the Coalition have only been able to do that because the conservative right in Great Britain have lost the argument when it comes to Britain being a first-rate power.  Part of this defeat has come down to the fact that we are no longer able to display our relationship with America.  How can we claim a Special Relationship with America, when the Obama Administration is denying that the relationship ever existed?

Anyway, the article can be found here.

Milton Friedman - still relevant today!

I love the work of Milton Friedman, and think he has become more relevant in the Obama years in America than perhaps he ever was during his lifetime.  The Nobel Prize winning economist was a continual advocate for smaller government, lower taxes and freer markets - and would put his arguments forth in a way that could rarely be combated by his opponents.  I have yet to see anyone take on Milton Friedman in a debate and win.

As a result, I have found some of his work on LibertyPen, a great YouTube site, full of conservative and libertarian videos.  This one is a great example of the work of Friedman, where he goes into a University, and answers the many questions that the (often) left-wing students have about his work.  The crowd is quite rowdy but it is clear that many are gobsmacked by his arguments, and a greater number are entirely convinced.  An example can be found below.

Falkland Wars - part II

So, the Argentinians are at it again.  Corrupt socialist Evita wannabe - Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - has been eyeing up the Falkland Islands to prop up her general unpopularity amongst everyone except American left-wingers.  Just like Galtieri invaded the Falklands in the 1980's as the popularity of his military junta was at a low, it is no coincidence that Kirchner has picked now as her time to start aggressive posturing.

The Falkland Islands debate is one that is entirely false.  The lands are British, and have always been British, with a brief period of Spanish occupation - Argentina has never owned the Falklands, and their only claim to it is that they are near to it, and therefore deserve them.  A nonsensical argument - imagine if every country did this!  Would America try and claim Canada?  Would Britain try and claim France again?  Well, Britain discovered the Falkland Islands in 1690, and has owned them constantly since 1833, so Argentina will have to come up with a lot better than that.

What the incident does do, amongst other things, is show exactly why Britain needs a good Navy.  The Falklands are ours, and despite the squeals of the left-wing, we must defend them - not just because they are sovereign British lands, but also because the citizens of the Falklands overwhelmingly want to remain British.

In this era of cuts, when there is a lot of pressure from the Left for us to focus on defence cuts instead of welfare and social program cuts, this should be a reminder as to why we need a Navy, and an Army etc.  It isn't there just to deal with pockets of radical Islam - it is there to defend our territories against hostile nations if and when we need them.

The Argentina situation is one to keep an eye on.  America has backed down from supporting us in this with the Obama administration coming to power, and we may have to fight this one on our own if it ever comes to it.  But if it does come to it, then we need to guts, and the resources to defend our territory, and the people who live on them.

The Left's Terror Folly

My latest article in the American Thinker was out yesterday.  It focuses on the myth that Islamic anger is somehow isolated to American foreign policy.  This myth infects the policies of the Obama Administration and various European governments.  However it has been blown to pieces by the latest attempted terrorist attacks in Europe, which  targeted countries that did not follow Bush's foreign policy.  This has significance for the left's understanding of the future of foreign policy.

The article can be found here.