Unjust Geneva Convention - Soldier Rots In Prison Warmonger Stays Free

When it was revealed that Her Majesty's Shadow Secretary of Defence, Emily Thornberry, has received political donations from a dodgy law firm, Leigh Day, who scoured the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan searching for 'victims of abuse' supposedly perpetrated by British soldiers with a view to suing them, it raised the age old issue of what are acceptable or unacceptable actions during warfare.

(Dodgy law firm get busted here)

It came as news to millions of people, myself included, that there exists a 145-strong department called the Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) charged with investigating these allegations and who's caseload has exceeded 1,500 cases. The investigation into whether Iraqi's or Afghans were ill-treated or unlawfully killed by soldiers will drag on until 2019 at the earliest and cost at least
$88 million.

How that affects soldiers efficiency on the battlefield is anyone's guess but it can hardly be conducive to their morale.

Law firms like Leigh Day and the IHAT who together swim in the fetid swamp of the recently created human rights industry would serve justice better if they investigated with equal vigour those who send soldiers into battle in the first place.

The infamous case of jailed-for-life Royal Marine Sgt Alexander Blackman, previously designated Marine A and the man who got him involved the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is a case in point.
(Marine A prosecution here)

No one could have put the issue in clearer language than author and journalist George Orwell who opined on the issue way back in 1943. It's worth quoting part of his article from his Tribune newspaper column, As I Please, to illustrate the point:

"I note the surprise with which many people seem to discover that war is not a crime. Hitler, it appears, has not done anything actionable. He has not raped anybody, nor carried off any pieces of loot with his own hands, nor personally flogged any prisoners, buried any wounded men alive, thrown any babies into the air and spitted them on his bayonet, dipped any nuns in petrol and touched them off with church tapers - in fact he has not done any of the things which any enemy nationals are credited with doing in war-time. He has merely precipitated a world war which will have cost twenty million lives before it ends. And there's nothing illegal in that".

Since this was written the Geneva and Hague Conventions have been updated and re-written to clarify the laws of war with the noble intention of protecting prisoners and non-combatants among a myriad of other things.

In light of the fact that the war which resulted in Sgt Blackman being jailed for finishing off a fatally wounded Taliban terrorist was justified by Tony Blair using doctored intelligence reports and outright lies and also by the fact that he is free as a bird, it is abundantly clear that the Geneva and Hague Conventions make the serving soldier doing what he is trained to do liable to prosecution while absolving the warmonger from any responsibility or guilt whatsoever.

Blair lied to Parliament and along with his communications chief Alastair Campbell deliberately 'sexed up' the dossier on weapons of mass destruction and other matters in order to justify waging war on Iraq which posed no threat to Great Britain or it's people.
( One dodgy dossier story here)

In the context of Orwell's quote Tony Blair was party to precipitating a war which has so far cost the lives of anywhere between two-hundred thousand and a million souls, most of them civilians and it appears he has done nothing illegal.

Blair's actions have not  justified prosecution under the Geneva and Hague Conventions therefore they are not fit for purpose and consequently they should be considered invalid for deciding guilt for the causes and actions in modern international armed conflicts.

It must also be acknowledged that in addition to the appalling casualties resulting from Blair's war it has also precipitated the rise of ISIS which in turn has resulted in murder and mayhem across the world and a further untold increase in casualties.

Orwell ended his article thus:

"Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony-bin made use of by some other planet".

In conclusion, Sgt Blackman's action of dispatching a single terrorist to claim his virgins in paradise was done under unimaginable stress in the heat of battle and is trivial compared to horrendous casualties caused by the illegal actions of Tony Blair which were decided at his leisure with no stress at all.

Sgt Blackman is a hero who did what he was trained to do and therefore he should be released forthwith with his rank and benefits restored.
   

Home Sweet Home - ISIS Volunteers Return To Old Blighty

News that the 'British' family of five, including four children, apprehended at the Turkish border while trying to join the ISIS killers in Syria are to be repatriated back 'home' to Great Britain is causing more than a little outrage. It is also another glaring example of the yawning chasm between the political class and the people they are paid to represent.

The vast majority of normal British citizens - by normal I mean real people not the self loathers who go around calling themselves 'progressives' - are aghast that the politicians are preventing these jihadis from leaving in the first place but doubly so by the insanity of repatriating them if they are caught after leaving.

The very fact that they have left Great Britain to join what is now accepted to be one of the most barbaric organisations in history in order to mutilate, behead and otherwise murder for their religion, demonstrates the unbridled hatred they have for their British 'fellow countrymen' and their way of life.

The whole issue of mass third world immigration, along with the volunteers leaving to join ISIS, raises a multitude of questions and there's no better opportunity than an election campaign for the politicians to come clean for once and furnish the answers.

(They won't of course, because the various election campaigns are being run by slick PR men with their teams of advertising executives and image consultants. They will avoid the truth along with anything else contentious in order to create the false impression that their charges have the interests of the people in mind....but I digress again)

The British people deserve to know the answers to the following legitimate questions:

Why did the politicians open the borders to incompatible cultures from the third world who harbour a visceral hatred for the host country, its people and their way of life?

What contribution to the economy and life of Great Britain, or elsewhere, do these people make?

If they want to leave Great Britain to join ISIS and engage in their fight for a Caliphate why prevent them from doing so?

Once they have left to begin their career in murder and mayhem why apprehend and subsequently repatriate them to the country and the people they hate so much?

If these returnees go on to kill, maim or otherwise cause harm to any member of the British public, will relevant members of the political class be held responsible and punished accordingly?

Knowing that these jihadis hate, and would willingly kill their hosts, why are the borders still open to them and their fellow countrymen?

The biggest question of all is why do the political class continue to demonise, smear, threaten and insult decent British people by labeling them as racists and bigots for having the temerity to ask these questions in the first place?

Students of history will recall that ISIS jihadis are not the first group of motivated British citizens to travel abroad in order to fight for their beliefs.

It is reported that anywhere between five hundred and seven hundred British Muslims have traveled to the middle east to join ISIS in their fight for a Caliphate. This is small by comparison to the twenty three hundred British and Commonwealth citizens who traveled to Spain to join the Stalin supported International Brigade in their fight for a Communist state.

Volunteers for the International Brigade included many famous names but none more so than world famous author and self confessed socialist George Orwell. (The tall chap in the photograph)

It must be pointed out that like ISIS, the International Brigade fighters were prepared to kill in pursuit of their cause, Stalinist communism, which was in reality as bloodsoaked as the Caliphate proposes to be.

An attempt was made to use the Foreign Enlistment Act to prevent volunteers leaving for Spain but it was deemed to be ineffective and hence they left virtually unhindered. There was no attempt to stop them leaving, apprehend them en route or confiscate their passports. They were treated as heroes as opposed to terrorists and some were greeted on their return at Victoria Railway station by none other than future Prime Minister Clement Attlee.

Despite Stalinist communism being a violent revolutionary threat to Great Britain and its way of life, the British International Brigade volunteers were not required to attend any cultural awareness courses on their return or be constantly monitored by the police, on the contrary there are numerous monuments erected in their honour.

The reason for pointing this out is that if British Muslim jihadis travelling abroad to fight for their beliefs are treated any differently to the International Brigade communists doing the same for theirs, then the government are admitting that there are two classes of British citizen based on religion, culture or political beliefs.

This shatters the very core of their 'multi-cultural' philosophy in that all cultures, ethnic groups, religions etc. are equal and must treated as such on pain of prosecution and possible imprisonment.

In line with his own policy of cultural and religious equality it is now incumbent upon David Cameron and the other vocal advocates of 'multi-culturalism' not to discriminate against returning jihadis and give them hero's welcome before raising monuments in their honour.

For Info - "Old Blighty" is a term of endearment for Great Britain the motherland, used mainly by troops stationed abroad.  

 

Election Alert! - Progressives Are Totalitarians In All But Name

With election fever gripping both Great Britain and the USA where spin and word manipulation will be the order of the day, it's worth reminding ourselves of what those who refer to themselves as 'progressives' really are.

Socialist, communist and all other leftist regimes are totalitarian by nature. Like the 'Man Made Global Warming' fanatics their vision is so impaired by the religious nature of their ideologies they are beyond reasonable discourse.

They believe that their vision of the perfect state is historically inevitable therefore all other points of view must be ridiculed, discounted and ultimately banned.

Due to the religious nature of their perverted ideology the socialist/communist/progressive community are incapable of understanding that others may take a different view. In a mature democracy with an informed populace the issues should be debated rationally, decisions should then be made or voted on based on the outcome of the discourse.

'Progressives' hate this discourse, they believe it to be a waste of time that only serves to delay the inevitable. They believe that any alternative view to theirs should not be heard. Censorship, book burning and intolerance are the hallmarks of all socialist/communist/progressive regimes.

Although we are almost there, the socialist/communist state has not been fully established in Great Britain or the USA. There are still pockets of resistance in the form of dissident publications and broadcasters, along with the blogosphere and the Internet in general - all of which 'progressive' governments the world over are desperately trying to regulate and control.

Like the tyrants of old who to tried to ban the printing press, socialist/communist/ progressive governments believe that they must control the message and the means of its delivery.

In the absence of controlling the message and with nothing to contribute to any debate, 'progressives' denigrate anyone with whom they disagree. Hence we see spin, sophistry and outright propaganda used to promote their agenda, while at the same time employing smear and abuse for anyone promoting a different viewpoint.

This is best illustrated by the leftist controlled climate change lobby. In an attempt to silence any alternative views they claim the science is settled, the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is labelled a 'denier'. A word associated with those who deny the Holocaust; this is the ultimate smear and illustrates the depths to which socialists/communists/progressives will sink to abuse anyone with whom they disagree.


Another 'progressive' tactic is the abuse of language. This is an Orwellian concept whereby twisting the meaning of words one can eventually rewrite history to portray it in a light favourable to their ideology.

The word 'gay' is a classic example.

Men attracted to other men have always been known as homosexuals, there's nothing wrong with that word in particular. Like heterosexual its a perfectly functional word which doesn't imply inferior status. The word 'gay' has been hijacked with the intention of changing the perception of homosexuals as sexual deviants to a more benign lighthearted and carefree group.

It has also had the effect of giving homosexuals special status as opposed to equal status with heterosexuals.

In the methodology of 'progressives' special status metamorphosis's into victim status and hence the sympathy vote.

The word 'progressive' itself is another word that has been hijacked by the left with the intention of changing its meaning to promote a softer more benign image for their perverted ideology.

The following is a run down of some of the worst socialist/communist/progressive regimes and their leaders which comprises some of the darkest, most murderous enemies of the human race.

National Socialist German Workers Party - Hitler
USSR - Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin through to Putin today
China - Mao Tse Tung Thro to Xi Jinping today
Cambodia - Pol Pot
North Korea - the Kim family
Cuba - The Castro brothers and Che Guavara
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Serbia - Slobodan Milosovic
Libya - Colonel Ghadaffi
Syria - the Assad family
Venezuela - Hugo Chavez
Zimbabwe - Butcher Bob Mugabe

The entire post war East European socialist bloc with its secret police forces, political prisoners
poverty for the masses but riches for the 'progressive' political elite.

Its no wonder with a reputation for bloodsoaked oppression leftists needed a word to replace socialism/communism in order to hide the true nature of their ideology.

Now referring to themselves as 'progressives' they claim their mission remains the pursuit of fairness, social justice and a more equal society engineered by a benign state. Hundreds of millions who have suffered under the yoke of socialist/communist/progressive tyrannies know differently and tens of millions more dissidents are dead.

In the perverted world of socialist/communist/progressive doublethink, the closer we move toward the totalitarian regimes mentioned above the more 'progress' society has made.

Beware! 'Progressives' may have changed their name but they are still socialists/communists who's ideology was codified by Karl Marx and there's nothing progressive about Marxism.

Progress would be bettered measured by the amount of distance countries move away from the oppressive socialist/communist/progressive collectivist regimes toward the bright, sunlit uplands of freedom and individual liberty.

Royal Marine Gets Life For Dispatching Insurgent - Tony Blair Just Gets Rich

By an amazing coincidence I read only yesterday a column written by George Orwell for the Tribune newspaper dated 31 December 1943. It was in reference to 'war guilt' and the surprise that people seem to have when they discover that war is not a crime.

One of the main headlines today is that a Royal Marine has been sentenced to life imprisonment for dispatching an enemy combatant who he was trained specifically to kill.

The column by Orwell and the trial of the Royal Marine has certain parallels and these raise some issues that should be taken into consideration when officers make the decision to prosecute soldiers for killing the enemy.

Before referring to Orwell and this particular case, it is worth looking back briefly at the incident in question.

As I understand it, the accused Marines were sent to check an area for live insurgents after a helicopter had attacked a group of Taliban killers.

They found one who was barely alive and after a few expletives he was dispatched to meet his maker accompanied by a Shakespearean quote from Hamlet.

The incident came to the attention of an officer and it appears the disciplinary process started from there.

Unfortunately the action was caught on a helmet camera and one of the Marines kept a diary which was used in evidence.

The dispatching Marine also made reference to the Geneva Convention which helped seal his fate.

The prosecuting attorney, David Perry QC, stated that the incident was "an execution of a man who was entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and entitled to be treated as any British service man, or service woman, would be entitled to be treated in a similar situation".

I am not sure which planet Mr. Perry QC hails from, but what he doesn't tell us is, that although British service men and women are theoretically entitled to respect and dignity, would they get it from the Taliban?

The Taliban are a formidable, utterly ruthless enemy who, as everyone knows, 'worship death like we worship life', they show no quarter nor do they ask for any in return. They have declared jihad on the west and have threatened to behead all infidels if they do not accept domination by their desert death cult.

The Taliban butcher their own kind with no mercy, including women and children, for partaking of normal activities such as attending school or flying a kite.

The Geneva Convention does not exist for these medieval barbarians therefore one cannot expect to win a war when only one side fights by the rules.

Did Mr. Perry QC take into account the stress these Marines were under after losing seven comrades killed in action and another forty injured, some with life changing injuries?

Does he accept that only people who have experienced the heat of battle can understand what being attacked every single day does to ones mental equilibrium, let alone sustaining ten casualties in a twenty four hour period.

One of the Marines on trial described as "absolutely devastating" seeing some of his comrades killed in action and their body parts hung in trees as trophies by the same Taliban insurgents who are "entitled to be treated with dignity and respect" from the comrades of the fallen.

Would it not have been better to use the effects of these attacks as mitigation, then send the Marines on some R and R for the purpose of de-stressing, rather than putting them on trial for murder?

Training Marines to kill the enemy, then prosecuting them for murder when they do just that because they didn't kill them within the rules, smacks of posturing.

This incident could have been dealt with in-house, instead the 'powers that be' chose to parade it on the international stage; this show trial has the effect of burnishing their compassionate. 'progressive' credentials for their masters at the UN.

The lessons that should be learned by military men and women who are sent into harms way are this:

a) Always remember some of your officers will stitch you up if it enhances their 'progressive' reputation on the international stage.

b) If you are going to keep a diary, make sure to keep it well hidden.

c) Switch off the helmet camera and microphones in dodgy situations.

As for George Orwell, he summed up the utter stupidity of the attitude to 'official war'. He demonstrates how a soldier dispatching one enemy outside the rules gets charged with murder but the people responsible for starting the war and killing millions are not guilty of anything.

Tony Blair, who is accused by a growing number of people of starting an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, is now laughably, a multi-millionaire peace envoy.

While helmet cameras and diaries have been used in evidence against the Marines, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is steadfastly refusing to release documents of communications between Blair, Bush and later Brown, to the Chilcot inquiry.

This inquiry was instituted to determine Blair's justification for the Iraq war. Two previous inquiries were so obviously flawed they were dismissed as pure whitewash.

It would appear that Blair has something to hide and the people have a right to know what it is.

(I was unable to find a link so I will write his quotes as they are classic Orwell).

"Hitler, it appears, has not done anything actionable.  He has not raped anybody, nor carried off any pieces of loot with his own hands, nor personally flogged any prisoners, buried any wounded men alive..........in fact he has not done any of the things which enemy nationals are usually credited with doing in war-time.  He has merely precipitated a world war which will perhaps have cost twenty million lives before it ends. And there is nothing illegal in that". 

He goes on to describe how the Kharkov trials attempted to pin the guilt on Hitler and the rest, for atrocities committed on the Russian front by his subordinates;  the fact that there was a trial, proved that Hitler's guilt was not self evident.

"His crime it is implied was not to build up an army for the purpose of aggressive war, but to instruct that army to torture prisoners".

I will conclude with Orwell's own conclusion from December 1943:

" Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometime make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony-bin made use of by some other planet".

See a previous post on the same subject here.

Sir Winston Churchill A Drunken Bullsh*tter - BBC Helps To Re-Write History

".........is involved with the news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit the Party doctrine for propaganda purposes".

This quote describes the function of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984, which was written as a warning about the reality of socialist totalitarianism into which the world was drifting after World War II.

This quote also describes to the letter, the British Broadcasting Corporation, better known as the BBC. This taxpayer funded mouthpiece for the Labour Party is touted, along with the death inducing NHS, as one of Great Britains best loved institutions. In reality the BBC is run by Common Purpose trained political operatives as an efficient purveyor of 'progressive' propaganda.

The revolving door between the Labour Party and the BBC is legendary and even its own staff unashamedly admit that the corporation is hideously biased.

A recent publication by an obscure Professor rewriting the history of Sir Winston Churchill's wartime leadership, and particularly the public reaction to his speeches, is unlikely to have sold many copies outside of his limited academic circle or the cabal of self loathing 'progressive' Britain haters. That is until the BBC steps in to give the professor's book free publicity on a scale that would be denied to any non 'progressive' authors of books extolling the virtues of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

The professor's rewriting of history includes the assertion that Winston Churchill "was not a decisive influence on the nations willingness to fight on against Hitler when Britain was on its knees in 1940".

He makes this assertion but fails to tell us what did the influence the people to fight on when all appeared lost in 1940. It wasn't his deputy, the discredited appeaser Neville Chamberlain or that modest little man Clement Attlee.

He also claims that Churchill's famous 'finest hour speech' "lacked impact because people thought that he was drunk".

It's no secret that Churchill had a speech defect which was apparent when he was drunk or sober.  He also enjoyed a tipple and was often three sheets to the wind in the House of Commons; whether these had any negative affect on his wartime leadership or the reception of his speeches, is not proven.

In his desperation to justify these assertions this professor claims that his research revealed that when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942 one Londoner said that Churchill's rallying speech was "f*****g b******t and a f*****g coverup". The professor doesn't enlighten us on what the other eight million Londoners had to say.

This is obviously a rewriting of traditional history that paints Churchill as a great war leader and his speeches as inspirational oratory that kept the morale of the nation high during the dark days of Hitler's blitzkrieg across Europe, when Great Britain stood alone. Churchill possessed all the characteristics and values that self loathing 'progressives' despise. Patriotism, Christianity, Imperialism, free enterprise etc. The combative content of his speeches are enough to send any socialist, hippy, peacenick, or CND supporter into fits of apoplexy.

'Progressives' are in the ascendency and on a roll so there is no better time for rewriting history in order to change the facts to fit their doctrine for propaganda purposes, and who better than the BBC to act as the Ministry of Truth.

The debunking of Churchill is no small matter.  To enhance the chances of succeeding the BBC wheels out one of its big guns to act as propagandist in chief. The award winning Andrew Marr is eloquent and well versed in using the media to push the 'progressive' agenda.

The BBC is supposed to be an impartial public service bringing the news to the people without opinion but its leading light, Andrew Marr, is a skilled a propagandist and despite his affability he is a committed radical socialist.

Like all radical socialists he is a total hypocrite with a wealthy background and an exclusive education. By his own admission he was a raving leftie at University known as Red Andy. Normally people tend to grow up after leaving the Students Union bar but Red Andy remained a Troskyite and could be one still.

As a measure of his dedication to authoritarian socialism and his suitability to run the Ministry of Truth it is worth quoting an article published in the Guardian during the smoking ban debate:

"the final answer is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilizing influence for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off".

No 'nudge units' or 'behavioral insight teams' for Red Andy, just good old fashioned nightsticks and jackboots.

He goes further with the cultural replacement agenda:

"The police are first in line to be burdened further , but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too".

Faced with a fanatic with beliefs like that Churchill's reputation is bound to take a hit.

Being a 'progressive', Marr is also an authoritarian who doesn't believe in freedom of speech or the press and he has a particular disdain for political bloggers. If he had his way, only the likes of himself and the BBC would be allowed to report the news or have a world view.

"Political bloggers are socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower nosed young men sitting in their mothers basements and ranting. They are very angry people".

I will give him the benefit of the doubt that there could be a hint of satire in his description but it nevertheless displays a certain arrogance that comes naturally to an elitist who, like our political leaders, has little worthwhile contact with people in the real word. He is an appalling snob.

Andrew Marr is the wrong person to be calling other people inadequate or seedy. Marr is a sex pest and adulterer who cheated on his long time wife, Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley. The sleazy slime ball was also caught on tape drunkenly groping, harrassing and trying to kiss a female colleague.

His enemies, myself included, had a reason to laugh when, after the injunction against reporting his adulterous behavior was lifted, it was revealed that he had been paying maintenance for a child he thought he had fathered. DNA testing revealed that Andrew Marr was not the only one parking his car in his lovers' garage. It is unknown if she paid the money back or was taking both the mugs for child maintenance. Hilarious.

In conclusion, I would add that it is not surprising that at this particular time when 'progressives' are emboldened and in the ascendency, some university professor, aided and abetted by the BBC, has chosen to rewrite history with a view to trashing the reputation of one of Britain's greatest heroes. Needless to say that compared to Winston Churchill, the professor and Andrew Marr are maggots feeding on the fetid dung heap known as the BBC.

When this parasitic pair are turned to dust Sir Winston Churchill's reputation will remain stamped across history like the giant he was.

The British people say goodbye to Sir Winston Churchill

Bill Gates - Obama Supporter Advocates Equality But Takes Care Of His Own

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". If ever there was quote that sums up multi billionaire Bill Gates then this is it. George Orwell buffs will recognize the quote from his world famous novel, Animal Farm. The novel is a parody on the Russian revolution whereby animals, led by the pigs, overthrow their human masters, take over the farm and run it under a communist system. Not unlike today's 'progressive' mantra of equality and fairness, everything on the farm is shared and 'all animals are equal' according to the seventh Commandment of Animalism.

Without giving too much of the story away, the pigs take over the running of the farm, become an elite and start behaving in the same manner as the humans they replaced. Equality and fairness no longer apply to the pigs hence the re-writing of the seventh Commandment.

The resemblance of Bill Gates to the pigs in this novel is uncanny. The formation of Microsoft and the rise Bill Gates into a multi-billionaire is chronicled elsewhere, his nasty flip side and his descent into utter hypocrisy is not.

The current history reads like a modern day fairytale where a geeky college dropout forms a company in his parents garage which grows into a multi-billion dollar global company through technical innovation and hard work, making Gates a personal fortune along the way.

In reality Gates was an arrogant, ruthless operator who attempted to crush any competition from companies or individuals that got in the way of Microsoft's domination of the market. The list of lawsuits by governments and individual companies is endless.

Since his retirement from Microsoft, Gates is now nurturing his reputation as a philanthropist and his support for President Obama is meant to demonstrate his commitment to improving the condition of the American people as well as curing disease in Africa.

The fact that Obama is an unreconstructed radical socialist is now beyond dispute so by lending his support it can be assumed that Gates has adopted Obama's agenda to 'fundamentally transform' America from the free enterprise, limited government system, that allowed him to accumulate his billions, into a socialist state.

Bill Gates doesn't do anything unless there is something in it for himself so his conversion to socialism is suspect. Having made and stashed away his fortune, Gates now advocates higher taxes in order for the government to spend more on entitlements, he is even urging Obama to embrace a global taxation.

Charity giving in the USA is tax deductible so it would be tax efficient for Gates to give as much to charity as possible.

Gates is already being sanctified for his project to cure polio and other diseases in Africa but there is something in it for Bill there too. The big pharmaceutical multi-nationals are up to their necks in dodgy deals in Africa and not all Africans are convinced that Gates is not up to his neck also. His $10 billion donation to vaccine development is now being considered a scam. His polio vaccines, of which he is so proud, has reputedly resulted in the deaths and injury of tens of thousands of African children.

Bill Gates support for Obama's equality and fairness agenda exposes his hypocrisy for all the world to see. President Obama and his radical government firmly believe in equality of opportunity for all of America's children and so should Bill, but when it comes to his own daughter his ideals go out of the window in typical socialist fashion.

Gates obviously doesn't think it goes against his Presidents' agenda of equality and fairness when he buys his daughter a $8.7 million mansion to boost her showjumping career. The level playing field for sporting competitors obviously doesn't apply in the Bill Gates socialist Utopia.

It would be interesting to know whether Gates has paid the applicable gift tax on this mansion or as he found a way around it thus depriving the Obama Treasury of much needed revenue. It would also be interesting to know if the Bill Gates billions will be subject to Estate/Death taxes, currently running at forty percent or has he made a Kennedy arrangement whereby Joe Kennedy's fortune is still intact after all these years, keeping his clan in comfort to this day.

Bill Gates should have remembered from the last Presidential campaign that tax efficiency is unpatriotic and frowned upon by the Obama administration, or maybe that is only applicable when Presidential rival Mitt Romney does it.

As the informed people of the world are aware, the consequences of socialism are only applicable to the little people, the leaders like Obama and the hangers on like Bill Gates make themselves immune from what they preach, they have become the pigs of Animal Farm.

"the creatures outside looked from pig to man and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which" - George Orwell

Update:

Watch this hilarious video clip of Democratic sex pervert, disgraced Senator and New York Mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner, debate estate/death taxes with Fox News' Megan Kelly.

What an arrogant and thoroughly obnoxious little so and so he is.