by Kenneth Boser II

Created on: July 19, 2007

Between George III and George W. Bush? Um, no.

Now if it were Bill Clinton or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there might be other comparisons, but George III to "W", no.

George III was an English king who sought to rule the colonists of the many territories with an iron fist backed by the army - the "Redcoats". George had territories in India, the South Pacific (Pitcairn and Solomon Islands), and the Eastern Seaboard of America, which became the United States.

I could see where some liberal, half-cocked with reason, and fully-cocked with hatred for George W. Bush as President of the United States of America, would make the parallel, seeing as they cite Bush for the fault of everything that goes wrong in their dystopic vision of America. But their vision has led to the destruction of the Soviet Union, countless other systems of governing, and threatens the very system George W. Bush is trying to restore - the same system of government that was nearly destroyed by the cronies in the Clinton co-presidency.

Of Clinton, Charles II, or of the Clinton co-presidency, Ahab and Jezebel. (see I Kings in the Holy Bible),

Of FDR, perhaps Stalin or Hitler would be the best comparison. After all, it was FDR who signed into law reducing the human aspect of life in the United States, each one assigned a number, cleverly defined it as "Social Security."
On one famous occasion, FDR referred to his counterpart across the Bering Strait as "Uncle Joe," while Mr. Djugashvili (Stalin) murdered through blind ambition and paranoia, 20 million of his countrymen.
As for FDR, he might have well tried to tattoo the numbers for which everyone is now given a card like his counterpart in Germany did to the Jews just before they were led to the gas chambers and concentration camps - Auschwitz, Dachau, to name just two.

George W. Bush had war thrust upon him by the cowardice of terrorists and liberals who sought to cripple this, the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, the United States of America. Some terrorists hijacked four planes and struck New York, the Pentagon, and were headed toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but for the valiant effort of passengers to fight the tyranny of terror, crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, short of their target.

There are some, (usually liberals and Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs), who would assert this war as being unjust, that we shouldn't be in Iraq fighting terrorists, or in Afghanistan, or wherever they are. There's been talk in the Capitol about timetables, withdrawals, cut funding, et cetera - all signs of weakness. This however does not emanate from the President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush says, "We need to press on toward victory."

George W. Bush, though not always, could be compared to Ronald Reagan, or Winston Churchill... he's not a Neville Chamberlain type that liberals have come to adore in president. Yes, Clinton could be compared to Neville Chamberlain, who wanted to leave the resolution of war to the purview of the diplomats. That's like putting Kim Jong-Il in time-out, or trying to tell Deng Xiaoping to give Tibet back its land, and saying, " I really mean it this time," while bluffing.

Why do you think the colonists who pledged to each other, their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor, sought independence from George III of England in the first place? To advance the idea of a free people.

Learn more about this author, Kenneth Boser II.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.