► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Margaret Thatcher’

We shall not see her like again

by Mojambo ( 123 Comments › )
Filed under Cold War, History, UK, World War II at April 10th, 2013 - 7:00 am

A great farewell to Margaret Thatcher by one who actually knew her. I love his mentioning that the British Conservative Party has a long and ignominious tradition of  knifing their leaders in the back. Margaret Thatcher was the only post World War II Prime Minister (with the exception of Sir Anthony Eden who was Churchill’s Foreign Secretary) whom I could have seen as a great World War II leader.

by Conrad Black

The news of the death of Margaret Thatcher is not, at her age and in the condition that she has been in for some years, a great surprise or entirely sad. But in contemplation of the great career she had and the immense service she rendered the United Kingdom and the Western world, it is overwhelmingly sad. In general, Britain’s greatest prime ministers have served successfully in wars with other Great Powers: William Pitt the Elder (in the Seven Years’ War), William Pitt the Younger (in the Napoleonic Wars), Palmerston (in the Crimean War), David Lloyd George (in the Great War), and Winston Churchill (in World War II). Robert Walpole, Robert Peel, John Russell, Benjamin Disraeli, William Ewart Gladstone, and the Marquess of Salisbury are also generally reckoned to be great prime ministers, either as stylish survivors like Walpole and Salisbury or as great reformers, and especially if their accomplishments were leavened with a tremendous wit, parliamentary legend, and literary cachet, as Disraeli’s and Churchill’s were.

Margaret Thatcher conducted only a secondary war (the Falklands), as Salisbury did (against the Boers), but she conducted it extremely well and to the ultimate benefit of the enemy, as Argentinean democracy, whatever its limitations, resulted from the British rout of the Ruritanian and brutal junta that lumbered out of the Buenos Aires Officers’ Club in their over-bemedaled tunics to oust the nightclub singer who was the widow and successor of Juan Perón in 1976. [……….]In these 180 years, only Gladstone, in four separate terms and a parliamentary career spanning 63 years, and Salisbury, scion of Britain’s most exalted family (the Cecils) and chosen heir of Disraeli, in three terms, served longer than Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a provincial grocer.

It has been a disservice to her great achievements that Margaret Thatcher has been torn down by the Left, ungratefully deserted by her own party, and had her privacy violated by vulgar snobbery and snide cinematography (even if somewhat redeemed by the thespian artistry of Meryl Streep). Not too much should be read into the confused defection of the Conservative party from the legacy of the only person in 180 years who has led them to three consecutive full-term election victories. The British Conservatives leave the selection and retention of leaders to the parliamentary party, and have knifed every leader they have had since Stanley Baldwin, who took a good look at the Nazis and retired in 1937, except those who retired before they could be disembarked. Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and Iain Duncan-Smith were pushed out, and Alec Douglas-Home, John Major, William Hague, and Michael Howard retired before that indignity could be inflicted on them. Sharper by far than a serpent’s tooth is a British Conservative MP’s ingratitude.

When Margaret Thatcher was narrowly elected prime minister in 1979 over James Callaghan, the United Kingdom was on daily audit from the International Monetary Fund, currency controls prevented the removal of more than a few hundred pounds from the country, top corporate and personal income-tax rates were 80 and 98 percent, and those who had the temerity and persistence to enjoy a capital gain (which was hard to come by in Britain in that economic climate) were apt to enjoy the exaltation of soul generated by an effective tax rate of over 100 percent. The entire economy was in the hands of an intellectually corrupt, Luddite trade-union confederation, which chose most of the delegates to any conference of the governing Labour party, and whose shop stewards and craft-unit heads could shut down an entire industry in mid-contract for any reason, from an individual work grievance to the sour grapes generated by a poor round of darts in their local pub (on working hours).

In the year preceding the 1979 election, in what became known as “the winter of discontent,” almost every industry in the country had been shut down by capricious strikes, including the airports, trains, electric power, coal mines, garbage collection, and undertaking. The captains of industry and finance in the City, the style-setters in Mayfair and the West End, the doyennes of Bloomsbury and Knightsbridge, and the denizens of the chancelleries and ministries of Belgravia and Westminster huddled in the cold and dark, dead or alive. Government-owned operations, from the steel industry to the airports, were a cesspool of inefficiency and, in the private sector, large numbers of fictitious jobs were salaried and the proceeds went as sinecures to union favorites or into a pot to be divided at the pleasure of the union bosses. [………]

The Britain whose headship Margaret Thatcher had assumed had not led a foreign military operation since the debacle at Suez in 1956, in which the British and French, by prearrangement and without consulting the United States, incited an Israeli invasion of the Sinai and then bunglingly invaded Egypt and masqueraded as peacekeepers separating the two combatants. Twenty-five years later, the Argentineans invaded the Falklands and the British forcibly ejected them. Then, as always, Margaret Thatcher did not flinch. Nor did she when the Irish terrorists blew up her hotel at Brighton, killing several of her MPs: She insisted that the conference open exactly on time the next morning and gave extemporaneously an unforgettable call to arms against the terrorists. Nor did she when, as she cleaned up the state-owned industries and disemployed hundreds of thousands of under-worked beneficiaries of decades-old feather-bedding, and she was reviled in huge demonstrations. She did not waffle or waver over deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Britain, Germany, Belgium, and Italy to counter the Soviet ICBMs already in place in the satellite countries. When asked whether she sought a “nuclear-free Europe,” she instantly replied that she favoured “a war-free Europe.”

When large chunks of her parliamentary party lost their nerve over her free-market economics — a reduction of the top personal income-tax rate to 40 percent, elimination of all currency controls, massive privatization of industry, and right-to-work laws to remove the terror of the labor leadership — she famously told her party conference: “U-turn if you want; the lady’s not for turning.” She was a rock-solid supporter of the Western Alliance and was instrumental in the balanced elimination of intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the satisfactory end of the Cold War. She is generally credited with assisting President George H. W. Bush in determining that Saddam Hussein had to be evicted from Kuwait: “George, this is no time to go wobbly.” [……..]It was, to scale, Elizabeth I’s Gloriana, without Shakespeare to publicize it, and with more than a trace of the Churchillian courage and virtue that first attracted her to a Conservative candidacy under Churchill’s leadership in 1950 and 1951.

She formed her judgment of Germany when the Luftwaffe (in what must rank as one of the greatest long-term strategic blunders of World War II) bombed the town of Grantham, where teenage Margaret Thatcher lived. And she formed her opinion of Americans from the U.S. servicemen, black and white, whom she and her family invited home for dinner after the wartime Sunday services in her local Methodist church. […….]

She was a strong woman, but never a mannish one. She was an Oxford alumna (in chemistry) when they were somewhat rare, a Tory candidate for Parliament, an MP, and a female cabinet secretary when they were rare, the first woman leader of a major party in Britain, and the first woman prime minister; she assimilated this meritocratic rise, in the gritted teeth of hidebound British high-Tory traditionalism, with neither diffidence nor triumphalism. When she became the leader of the party, she entered the Carlton Club, the Conservatives’ social headquarters in St. James, and when informed that ladies were not allowed in other than as guests, she replied as she brushed past the doorman: “They are now.”  [………]

Her successors have squandered most of the national economic strength and political capital she bequeathed to them. She was undercut and stabbed more in the back than the front by her own party, for advocating in respect of Europe precisely what the great majority of the British public now believes — that European cooperation is unambiguously good, but integration should be approached with caution by Britain, until it is not stripping institutions that have served it well for centuries in favor of well-intentioned but unfledged replacements.

[…………..] When she retired as prime minister, the party chairman, Kenneth Baker, a loyal supporter, said, “We shall not see her like again,” and she said, “It’s a funny old world.” The following day, when she easily rebutted a no-confidence motion, the hard-left Labour MP Dennis Skinner loudly said, to great applause, “You can wipe the floor with this lot, Margaret,” referring to those who would succeed her in both parties. So she could. She was a saintly woman, and one of the great leaders who has arisen in a thousand years of British history.

Read the rest –  Thatcher ranks as one of the greatest leaders of Britain in a thousand years

Margaret Netanyahu

by Mojambo ( 46 Comments › )
Filed under Argentina, Cold War, History, Israel, UK at January 7th, 2013 - 11:30 am

Interesting comparisons between Margaret Thatcher and Benjamin Netanyahu.

by Jeremy Rosen

Margaret Thatcher was an incredibly divisive British prime minister. Personally, I could never warm to her. She was, however, credited with standing up to the unions. Although she had the immense good fortune to come to power as North Sea Oil provided the UK with a financial bonanza, she certainly changed the mood of the country from depressed hopelessness to one of optimism. Under her, Britain regained its mojo. Another of her great jingoistic triumphs was the successful Falklands War in 1982. It was perhaps the last hurrah of the British Empire.

President Ronald Reagan loved her, and in general she was held in greater affection by the United States than she was by most Britons. So it came as a great surprise to me to learn that Reagan nearly scuppered the Falklands campaign.

Here is an extract from an article that appeared in the British Sunday Telegraph on December 28, 2012:

“The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files. The proposal, by US secretary of state Alexander Haig, was intended to show the military junta in Buenos Aires that America was a neutral player and could be trusted to act impartially during negotiations to end the conflict.

Ronald Reagan, then US President, made repeated attempts to persuade Margaret Thatcher to negotiate a truce so the Argentinians could save face and avoid “complete humiliation”. He was told by the State Department that support for a European colonial power would undermine ties with Latin America and hamper Washington’s covert campaign against communism in the western hemisphere. Thatcher refused, telling Mr. Reagan in a late night phone call on May 31st, 1982 that she would “not contemplate” a ceasefire after the loss of “precious British lives”.

[…..]

While US defense secretary Caspar Weinberger proved a staunch ally of Britain from the outbreak of war on 2 April 1982, authorizing secret shipments of weapons vital to the task force, the US state department was anything but sympathetic to British interests.

You will notice that it was the US State Department that was the source of the anti-British sentiment, as indeed it has always been, and remains today, against anything pro-Israel. [……] It has always been the same in Britain. The Foreign Office’s civil servants have always been Arabists. It has always been the politicians, including Margaret Thatcher, who have tended to overrule them. Indeed, today the majority of the frontbench of the conservative British government is sympathetic towards Israel; the Foreign Office is not. Bureaucrats think with statistics, weighing up numbers and spheres of influence. They think with their minds rather than their hearts. Politicians are more likely to decide emotionally or as a result of personal pressure.

So it is with Israel. All logic goes against it. [……]Yet time and time again, when it really comes down to the crunch, against the odds, decisions go Israel’s way. There may be two reasons for this.

The first is that Israel is still more like the West than the East. It is surrounded by a sea of hatred and yet manages to survive. [……] Rather a failed government of their own than a successful one imposed from without. Yet it remains very much the underdog in comparison to the numbers, wealth, and power of the Arab and Muslim world. And counter intuitively, it is still both admired and hated.

But secondly, it is led by men who will fight for it, be prepared to be unpopular, refuse to curry favor with the international community and its journalists if they perceive its best interests are not being served. I don’t like Netanyahu any more than I like any politician. [……..] But I have to hand it to him. Netanyahu is prepared to fight and be unpopular in the process. So was Margaret Thatcher. That is why the majority of the Israeli public and I would rather have someone like that as a leader than a nominal Jew who cares little for our heritage, who would put Hollywood’s values over Judaism’s.

No one can deny the need to keep the USA sweet. Britain has known that since the First World War and Israel knows that now. But when push comes to shove, no one else cares as much about a Jewish state as it does. Every now and then the world needs to know that, warts and all, the Jews will fight to the bitter end no matter who refuses to support them. They might not have liked Thatcher but they admired her guts. Who knows one day history might be kind to Israel.

Read the rest – Margaret Netanyahu

Margaret Thatcher and the Jews

by Mojambo ( 77 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Holocaust, Israel, UK, World War II at January 11th, 2012 - 8:30 am

Margaret Thatcher was one of the great statesmen of the post -World War II era. If  Margaret Thatcher was Ronald Reagan, then the  current Tory boss David Cameron is a combination of George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. In this interesting article by Charles Johnson (lol I thought that name would get your attention) it is fascinating to see the ingrown anti-Semitism of so many of the British political classes which has only gotten worse in the past decade. Although not perfect (she must have been hell at times to work for), I so admire Margaret Thatcher and we should all be grateful that she and Reagan came to power at the same time. The thought of a vapid liberal such as Meryl Streep portraying her makes my stomach churn.

h/t- Powerline

by Charles C. Johnson

When asked about her most meaningful accomplishment, Margaret Thatcher, now embodied by Meryl Streep in the biopic Iron Lady, did not typically mention serving in the British government, defeating the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, taming runaway inflation, or toppling the Soviet Union. The woman who reshaped British politics and served as prime minister from 1979 to 1990 often said that her greatest accomplishment was helping save a young Austrian girl from the Nazis.

In 1938, Edith Muhlbauer, a 17-year-old Jewish girl, wrote to Muriel Roberts, Edith’s pen pal and the future prime minister’s older sister, asking if the Roberts family might help her escape Hitler’s Austria. The Nazis had begun rounding up the first of Vienna’s Jews after the Anschluss, and Edith and her family worried she might be next. Alfred Roberts, Margaret and Muriel’s father, was a small-town grocer; the family had neither the time nor the money to take Edith in. So Margaret, then 12, and Muriel, 17, set about raising funds and persuading the local Rotary club to help.

Edith stayed with more than a dozen Rotary families, including the Robertses, for the next two years, until she could move to join relatives in South America. Edith bunked in Margaret’s room, and she left an impression. “She was 17, tall, beautiful, evidently from a well-to-do family,” Thatcher later wrote in her memoir. But most important, “[s]he told us what it was like to live as a Jew under an anti-Semitic regime. One thing Edith reported particularly stuck in my mind: The Jews, she said, were being made to scrub the streets.” For Thatcher, who believed in meaningful work, this was as much a waste as it was an outrage. Had the Roberts family not intervened, Edith recalled years later, “I would have stayed in Vienna and they would have killed me.” Thatcher never forgot the lesson: “Never hesitate to do whatever you can, for you may save a life,” she told audiences in 1995 after Edith had been located, alive and well, in Brazil.

Other British politicians and their families housed Jews during the war, but none seems to have been profoundly affected by it as Thatcher was. Harold Macmillan, a Thatcher foe and England’s prime minister from 1957 to 1963, provided a home for Jewish refugees on his estate, but his relations with Jews were always frosty, the mark of a genuflecting anti-Semitism common among the Tory grandees.

During the controversial Versailles peace talks that ended World War I, Macmillan wrote to a friend that the government of Prime Minister Lloyd George was not “really popular, except with the International Jew,” the mythic entity thought to be behind all of Europe’s troubles and made famous by Henry Ford’s eponymously titled book. Macmillan often made snide jokes about Jews and Jewish politicians, derisively calling Leslie Hore-Belisha, a Liberal member of Parliament and a critic of appeasement in the years before World War II, “Horeb Elisha,” a jabbing reference to Mount Horeb, where the Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses.

[…..]

Thatcher, by contrast, had no patience for anti-Semitism or for those who countenanced it. “I simply did not understand anti-semitism myself,” Thatcher confessed in her memoirs. Indeed, she found “some of [her] closest political friends and associates among Jews.” Unique among British politicians, she was unusually free of even “the faintest trace of anti-Semitism in her make-up,” wrote Nigel Lawson, her chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1992. Lawson knew of what he spoke. Alan Clark, a senior Tory politician, wrote in his diaries that some of the old guard, himself included, thought Lawson could not, “as a Jew,” be offered the position of foreign secretary. Lawson’s “Jewish parentage was disqualification enough,” the Sunday Telegraph wrote in 1988, without a hint of shame. Rumors and speculation persisted well into the 1990s about why this or that Jewish member of Parliament couldn’t be made leader of the Conservative Party.

Early on in her career—even before she entered politics—Thatcher had worked alongside Jews as a chemist at J. Lyons and Co., a Jewish-owned company. (She had graduated from Oxford in 1947 with a degree in chemistry.) After quitting chemistry, she became a barrister and grew increasingly involved in politics. She ran for office in some of the more conservative districts and lost each time. Thatcher finally won when she ran in Finchley, a safe Tory seat in a north London borough. Finally she had found her constituents: middle-class, entrepreneurial, Jewish suburbanites. She particularly loved the way her new constituents took care of one another, rather than looking to the state: “In the thirty-three years that I represented [Finchley],” she later wrote, “I never had a Jew come in poverty and desperation to one of my [town meetings],” and she often wished that Christians “would take closer note of the Jewish emphasis on self-help and acceptance of personal responsibility.” She was a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley and a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Aghast that a golf club in her district consistently barred Jews from becoming members, she publicly protested against it. She even joined in the singing of the Israeli national anthem in 1975 at Finchley.

The Jews of Finchley were “her people,” Thatcher used to say—certainly much more so than the wealthy land barons that dominated her party.

***

When Thatcher became leader of the opposition in 1975, it was suggested that her closeness with British Jews might imperil the country’s foreign policy. Official correspondence released in 2005 shows the unease with which bureaucrats at the Foreign Office treated Thatcher’s affiliations in the run-up to her election as prime minister in 1979. Michael Tait, an official at the British embassy in Jordan, worried that Thatcher might be too readily seen as a “prisoner of the Zionists” unless she severed her official ties with pro-Jewish groups. Tait even suggested that Thatcher give up her beloved Finchley constituency for Westminster, a less Jewish district, and distance herself from the “pro-Israel MPs” that might make Middle East peace impossible. In the end, Thatcher reluctantly agreed to quit the Jewish groups she belonged to, but she kept her district and her relationships with pro-Israel parliamentarians.

Once she became prime minister, Thatcher appointed a government of outsiders. “The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet,” Macmillan would later say, “is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians.” (Eton, the famous prep school, required that its students’ fathers be British by birth, so as to keep out the Jews.) British politics had always been a club for genteel gentiles; Thatcher wanted to make it a meritocracy.

Thatcher appointed whomever she liked to positions in her government, whatever their religious or family background. Chaim Bermant, the Anglo-Jewish writer, probably went too far when he said Thatcher has “an almost mystical faith in Jewish abilities,” but he wasn’t completely off the mark. In addition to Nigel Lawson, she appointed Victor Rothschild as her security adviser, Malcolm Rifkind to be secretary of state for Scotland, David Young as minister without portfolio, and Leon Brittan to be trade and industry secretary. David Wolfson, nephew of Sir Isaac Wolfson, president of Great Universal Stores, Europe’s biggest mail-order company, served as Thatcher’s chief of staff. Her policies were powered by two men—Keith Joseph, a member of Parliament many thought would one day be the first prime minister who was a practicing Jew, and Alfred Sherman, a former communist turned free-market thinker.

[……]

 

Thatcher’s philo-Semitism went beyond the people she appointed to her government; it had clear political implications as well. She made Jewish causes her own, including by easing the restrictions on prosecuting Nazi war criminals living in Britain and pleading the cause of the Soviet Union’s refuseniks. She boasted that she once made Soviet officials “nervous” by repeatedly bringing up the refuseniks’ plight during a single nine-hour meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev, “The Soviets had to know that every time we met their treatment of the refuseniks would be thrown back at them,” she explained in her book The Downing Street Years. Thatcher also worked to end the British government’s support for the Arab boycott of Israel. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Thatcher criticized Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath’s refusal to supply Israel with military parts or even allow American planes to supply Israel from British airfields. In 1986, Thatcher became the first British prime minister to visit Israel, having previously visited twice as a member of parliament.

Yet despite her support for Israel, and though she rejected the stridently pro-PLO stance of some members of her government, she believed Israel needed to trade land for peace, wishing in her memoirs that the “Israeli emphasis on the human rights of the Russian refuseniks was matched by proper appreciation of the plight of the landless and stateless Palestinians.” She also condemned Israel’s bombing of Osirak, Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, in 1981. “[The Osirak attack] represents a grave breach of international law,” she said in an interview with London’s Jewish Chronicle in 1981. Israel’s bombing of another country could lead to “international anarchy.”

[…..]

That Thatcher did not give Israel the benefit of the doubt is disconcerting, though she made good by later calling for the liberation of Kuwait and eventually the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But in this Thatcher ought not to have let the mandarins in the Foreign Office get the better of her judgment: She should have trusted her philo-Semitic instincts.

Read the rest – Thatcher and the Jews

Why do feminists reject Margaret Thatcher?; and Meet Chris Kyle – America’s deadliest sniper

by Mojambo ( 170 Comments › )
Filed under Iraq, UK at January 2nd, 2012 - 2:00 pm

The answer is because the Iron Lady  rightly said that she did not owe her success to feminism. Thatcher ( a daughter of a grocer) owed every thing to her own talents and ambition. She did not ride the coattails of her husband (see Hillary Clinton) or inherit her position from  her father (see Indira Gandhi).  Thatcher recognized socialism for what it  was – a corrosive philosophy which was destroying Britain and she challenged the unions stranglehold on the nation. Ultimately as the author points out – Thatcher will always be hated by the feminists because she rejected unequivocally left-wing politics and sloganeering.

by Kyle Smith

When it comes to the feminist version of history (sorry — herstory!), it’s hurrah for Gloria Steinem. She started a magazine nobody ever read. And cheers for Billie Jean King, the tennis player who proved a young professional athlete could beat a 55-year-old slob.

Give it up for Indira Gandhi and Hillary Clinton, who proved that you could sweep into power on the coattails of your dad or husband, and by all means let us celebrate Oprah Winfrey, who proved that you could spin mystical mumbo-jumbo, airy empowerment talk and perpetual wounded victimhood into a billion-dollar sisterhood racket.

What about the most important woman of the 20th century, Margaret Thatcher, the subject of this week’s Oscar contender “The Iron Lady”? Here feminists get quiet. Demure, even. They let the gentlemen take over the conversation while they retreat to the next room.

Or else they attack her. In her first campaign to lead Britain, in 1979, a popular slogan launched by feminists was “We want women’s rights, not a right-wing woman.” (In her 1983 campaign, the Left boiled this down to “Ditch the bitch.”) A newspaper columnist put the common feminist view thus: “She may be a woman, but she is not a sister.” Opponents in Parliament dubbed her “Attila the Hen.”

“I owe nothing to women’s lib,” Thatcher said, and at another point she remarked, “The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.”

Yet Thatcher is among the most effective living ripostes to so many of the things feminists say they hate, such as:

* Being judged superficially based on style. Thatcher was said by some to be “sexy” — Christopher Hitchens used the word to describe his early meeting with her at a party — but she largely ignored the fashion game. She stuck with her frozen-nimbus haircut and boasted about shopping for undies at Marks and Spencer, an unglamorous mid-market chain.

* Being defined by a man. Hillary Clinton, standing by her husband amid excuse-making for his legendary adultery, famously said, “I’m not some little woman standing by her man.” Though Thatcher’s husband, Denis, was a successful businessman, after her rise began, no one doubted who was the senior partner. Jim Broadbent shows with his twinkly-eyed performance in “Iron Lady” how Denis became increasingly amused by his secondary role, jovially calling her “the Boss.”

* Getting ghetto-ized. Far from fixating on stereotypically female issues such as the family, health and education, Thatcher was a research chemist and tax lawyer who steeped herself in economics and foreign affairs.

[………]

A writer for the lefty British paper The Guardian harrumphed, “[Thatcher] had little interest in improving the public image of women, or in furthering other women’s careers; she had no interest in peace, or sundry other matters that might be considered “feminine” . . . On a practical level, she improved women’s lot not at all. But for those of us whose world did improve, who saw opportunities swing open and had the background, wealth, education and circumstance to maximize them, she did something unmatchable. Is it churlish if I carry on hating her anyway?”

Feminists will probably carry on hating Thatcher for the twin faults of rejecting left-wing policies and demonstrating their feebleness, but there is a whiff of sexism about the suggestion that a real woman must support liberal dogma instead of thinking for herself.

Thatcher bettered the lives of Britain’s women and men by decreasing income taxes (which were as high as 98 percent for investment gains), defeating the unions whose demands amounted to a tax on every household, decreasing regulation and privatizing inefficient state-run industries. In an astute 1989 profile for Vanity Fair, Gail Sheehy wrote, “People refer to Thatcherism as if it were a coherent, worked-out ideology. What it really is, in my view, is a reflection of her character. The ultimate self-made woman, she has created a religion of herself. And from her character and ambition flow her policies.” Sisters should be proud.

Read the rest – No way to treat a Lady
Meet Chris Kyle  (from Texas naturally)   a  former Navy SEAL and our deadliest  sniper  – an American hero who has killed 160 of our enemies (and had a price put on his head by the jihadis in Iraq) many of them in Fallujah.
DEVIL AND ANGEL: Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle watches over US Marines from his perch atop an upturned baby crib in a bombed-out building in Fallujah, Iraq. Branded a “legend” by his comrades and a “devil” by his enemies, Kyle racked up a record 160 kills.

DEVIL AND ANGEL:Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle watches over US Marines from his perch atop an upturned baby crib in a bombed-out building in Fallujah, Iraq. Branded a “legend” by his comrades and a “devil” by his enemies, Kyle racked up a record 160 kills.

Chris Kyle

Chris Kyle
by Gary Buiso
Secluded on the top floor of a bombed-out four-story apartment building north of war-scarred Fallujah, Iraq, Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle is just getting comfortable.

It’s November 2004. Thanksgiving time. The second battle of Fallujah has launched, and Kyle is swaddled in silence atop an upturned baby crib, studying the enemy through a Nightforce 4.5-22 power scope attached to a .300 Win Mag rifle.

He’s feeling badass.

“We just got word that the president of Iraq said that anyone left in the city is bad — meaning, clear to shoot,” he recalled for The Post. “From that point on, every fighting-age male was a target.”

That was just fine with Kyle, who spent five weeks in the hideout, protecting Marines on the ground and bagging seven confirmed kills — adding to his official total of 160, making him the deadliest sniper in US history.

“After the first kill, the others come easy. I don’t have to psych myself up, or do anything mentally — I look through the scope, get the target in the cross hairs and kill my enemy before he kills one of my people,” Kyle writes in his new autobiography, “American Sniper.”

During his 10-year career as a member of SEAL Team 3, Kyle, 37, saw action in every major battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

He became known among his fellow SEALS as “The Legend.”

The enemy was less complimentary.

In Ramadi, insurgents put an $80,000 bounty on his head and branded him “Al-Shaitan Ramadi” — “The Devil of Ramadi.”

“That made me feel like I was actually doing my job and having an effect on the war,” he said.

In north-central Texas, Kyle grew up dipping tobacco, riding horses and hunting deer, turkey and quail — a cowboy at heart.

[……]

The son of a Sunday-school teacher and a church deacon, Kyle credits a higher authority for his longest kill.

From 2,100 yards away from a village just outside of Sadr City in 2008, he spied a man aiming a rocket launcher at an Army convoy and squeezed off one shot from his .338 Lapua Magnum rifle.

Dead. From more than a mile away.

“God blew that bullet and hit him,” he said.

For Kyle, the enemy is a “savage” — there’s no room for gray, only black or white.

His Charlie platoon even adopted the insignia of the comic-book vigilante The Punisher, spray-painting skulls on their body armor, vehicles, helmets and guns.

“You see us? We’re the people kicking your ass. Fear us, because we will kill you, motherf–ker,” he writes.

The married father of two is now president of Craft International, an outfit that provides sniper and security training for the US military.

He teaches what’s required to take that perfect shot: Study the terrain, correct for elevation and wind, prepare for the vibration after the shot, and keep in mind the Coriolis effect, the effect of the rotation of the Earth on a bullet’s trajectory.

[…..]

He retired a chief petty officer, and along the way, collected an armload of hardware, including two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars with valor.

“That’s just candy,” Kyle said. “That’s not why we were there.”

Read  the rest – Meet the big shot