Delingpole: He Did Build That! Obama Caused the 2008 Banking Crash

US President Barack Obama talks about his NCAA Men's College Basketball March Madness tournament bracket picks before speaking about the financial system and consumer protection at Lawson State Community College in Birmingham, Alabama, March 26, 2015. AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty

As we remember the tenth anniversary of the 2008 banking crash which led to the Great Recession, let us not neglect to give credit to the man who, almost more than anyone, made the disaster possible.

Barack Obama.

Strangely, the liberal media – normally the first to praise Obama for even his most modest achievements – has been reluctant to acknowledge his contribution to this most momentous of global events.

But it’s true. As my old friend Christopher Booker notes in his Sunday Telegraph column, it all began with sub-prime mortgages – a disaster almost entirely of the Community Organizer in Chief’s making:

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Sinister Foreign Leader Caught Trying to Overturn Democratic Vote in UK…

AP Photo/Martinez Monsivais

Sinister foreign powers have been caught meddling in the elections of a Western sovereign nation, using nefarious threats to undermine the democratic will of the people. And the corruption goes right to the very top.

So why aren’t the Guardian and the New York Times over all this scandalous abuse of power?

Maybe because the culprit, on this occasion, is not Vladimir Putin but one Barack Obama.

This morning, on BBC Radio 4, former White House staffer Ben Rhodes confirmed what had long been suspected: that in 2016 Remainer Prime Minister David Cameron had persuaded his friend Obama to participate in his Project Fear propaganda campaign designed to scare the British people out of voting for Brexit.

The giveaway was when Obama warned that Britain would be “back of the queue” in any post-Brexit trade details. As an American, he would have said “line” not “queue” – so the phrase had clearly been fed to him by an Englishman, probably one called Dave.

It backfired very satisfyingly.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Cher: ‘Scott Pruitt Deserves to Be in Prison’

Twentieth Century Fox

Pop icon Cher has joined the chorus of liberals demanding that Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt be imprisoned for his alleged crimes against nature.
The “Believe” singer took to Twitter on Sunday and said, “Scott Pruitt deserves to be in prison.”

Cher followed that missive with another, saying, “I Hope Any poison He’s Allowed To come in contact with innocentChildren,comes back to him 10,000 TIMES.”

The singer and actress was responding to an article by the left-wing group Think Progress that accuses Pruitt of jeopardizing public safety by rolling back Obama-era regulations on risk management.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Donald Trump Must Turn Down the Nobel Peace Prize

The Associated Press/ Song Kyung-seo

I agree with South Korean President Moon Jae-in: if anyone deserves the Nobel prize for bringing about peace between North and South Korea it’s Donald Trump.

In the unlikely event that the Nobel prize committee ever agrees, I can think of two very tempting reasons why the Donald should accept. The first – which I’m sure must appeal to a man of Trump’s vanity – is: “Why not? I deserve it.” And it’s true, he does.

Do you remember all those articles that appeared in the MSM after Trump got elected, expertly explaining why his lack of diplomacy, his brashness, his ignorance, his brinkmanship, his naivety were the exact opposite of what were needed to bring a crazy like Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table?

When Trump threatened to destroy North Korea in his first speech to the United Nations and called Kim Jong-un “Rocket Man”, the usual suspects were appalled.

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, who was observed crossing her arms, told the BBC: “It was the wrong speech, at the wrong time, to the wrong audience.”

[Wallstrom, by the way, belongs to the Total Surrender to the Enemy school of international diplomacy.  When a Swedish female government delegation all put on hijabs during a visit to Iran, Wallstrom praised this as the equivalent of wearing a kippah in a synagogue]

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

The New York Times Is 100 Percent Wrong About Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt
AP/Carolyn Kaster

President Trump is winning at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

There can be no better proof of this than the latest anguished editorial in the New York Times, lamenting the changes made by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt.

The EPA, it claims, is the “epicenter of denial.” Its new regime is “terrified” of thwarting “Trump’s promise to ease regulations on fossil fuel companies and increase their profits”. Its every new action flies in the face of all the regulatory efforts made by such experts as Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, ex-EPA administrator Gina McCarthy and some guy from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

What’s not to like?

Steve Milloy, a writer more familiar with the EPA’s past dirty tricks than almost anyone, has compiled a glorious, line-by-line demolition of the Times‘s editorial.

Here is a taster (Milloy’s comments in bold):

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Trump to Repeal and Replace Obama’s ‘Stupid’ and ‘Job Killing’ Clean Power Plan

Trump Obama
Chip Somodevilla/Getty/AFP

President Trump is to take his first step towards scrapping President Obama’s “stupid” and “job killing” Clean Power Plan, an aghast New York Times reports.

The Trump administration will repeal the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s effort to fight climate change, and will ask the public to recommend ways it could be replaced, according to an internal Environmental Protection Agency document.

The draft proposal represents the administration’s first substantive step toward rolling back the plan, which was designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, after months of presidential tweets and condemnations of Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce climate-warming pollution.

But it also lays the groundwork for new, presumably weaker, regulations by asking for the public and industry to offer ideas for a replacement.

In 2016, when it launched the plan at Obama’s behest, the EPA declared that the Clean Power Plan was a vital, cost-effective way of combating climate change which would ultimately benefit the U.S. consumer.

However, an independent study by the Manhattan Institute showed this to be nonsense.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

If You Don’t Want to Get Nuked Don’t Bomb Pearl Harbor

People who agree with this sentiment ought to do two things.

First they should read the essay – Thank God for the Atom Bomb – war historian Paul Fussell wrote on how he felt when, as a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the US army, he and his comrades heard the news that Japan had been nuclear bombed into surrender.

“When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”

Second, they should familiarize themselves with which country it was started this particular war; which country fought it with such sadistic determination that they would frequently torture and bayonet prisoners – even the wounded, in hospitals they’d over-run and would almost always refuse to surrender themselves, making any assault on territory they held more than usually costly in allied lives.

If ever the US finds itself in such circumstances again, let us pray that the president it has at the time is nothing like Barack Obama.

Read the reset at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Twelve Reasons Why the Paris Climate Talks Are a Total Waste

Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.

1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

monckton1

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Green Jobs? Wot Green Jobs? (pt 2/2)

A glimpse inside David Cameron's head

A glimpse inside David Camerons head

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published a report into the future of “Green Jobs” in Britain. It is damning indeed. Though it doesn’t actually say as much the GWPF is too austere and restrained for such flippancies this Government’s green policies are the equivalent of trying to pay off the national debt by breeding unicorns to sell to Chinese millionaires.

Among the conclusions of The Myth of Green Jobs by Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University, are:

1. “Green jobs” are a chimera. Though diverting taxpayers money into the renewable energy sector may indeed “create” jobs in the renewable energy sector, it will cost many more jobs in the broader economy.

2. Policies to promote renewable energy will add 0.6 to 0.7 per cent per annum to core inflation from now till 2020. This is equivalent to a rise in the same period of the Consumer Price Index by 6.5 per cent. if the Government sticks to its inflation targets and applies restrictions on speed of growth through higher interest rates, then the “sacrifice cost” ie what the economy could have made, but was prevented from doing so by monetary policy is £250 billion.

3. These same policies will, on top of that £250 billion cost, reduce GDP by 2 per cent to 3 per cent for at least ten years. This will cost Britain the equivalent of 60 per cent of the amount the government spends each year on primary and secondary education.

4. Renewable energy will cost £120 billion making it 9 to 10 times more expensive than energy from conventional sources.

5. Claims about “innovation” and the development of “new industries” are a nonsense. “Almost every country in the world wants to claim the same benefit so the numbers do not add up.For the longer term, there is little doubt that the primary beneficiary will be China. That is already apparent from the way the market is developing.”

6. Not only is there no evidence to support lobbyists’ and government ministers’ claims that green “investment” will create green jobs, but also such a policy will result in lower real disposable incomes and higher prices. Little thought appears to have gone into considering the real consequences of this government policy. Indeed, all these claims about green jobs “seem intended to divert attention from the consequences of setting arbitary and poorly considered targets for renewable energy.”

Not, of course, that we didn’t know all this already. I’ve written before about those non-existent “green jobs” here, here (the one where we learned that for every “green job” created in Britain 3.7 jobs are lost in the real economy) and here (my evisceration of the beyond-dismal Climate Change minister Greg Barker). What’s more significant, though, surely, is that for all the overwhelming evidence out there of the environmental and economic damage being done by the Government’s green policies, the Government is making no effort whatsoever to change course.

The story is the same in Obama’s America, as described in this brilliant piece by Walter Russell Mead. HT Chris Horner. The examples he cites of Obama’s green jobs quest what he calls “feeding the masses on unicorn ribs” almost beggar belief.

150 green jobs created in Southern Michigan, at a cost per job of $2 million.

$700,000 city and state investment in Green Vehicles in Salinas, CA, which has failed to produce a single car

Even the New York Times admits that Obama’s Green Jobs aren’t working.

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

and

Job training programs intended for the clean economy have also failed to generate big numbers. The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.

And earlier this week, a US solar company which had received a $535 million government subsidy filed for bankruptcy due to falling panel prices and global demand.

Solyndra is the third U.S. solar manufacturer to fail in a month as falling panel prices and weak global demand are driving a wave of industry consolidation. President Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010 to promote investments in renewable energy and its closure will provide fuel to critics of his policies.

You bet they will. One of the questions these critics may well be asking Obama is: isn’t squandering half a billion of taxpayers’ money on a failed project a rather cheeky way of funding your election campaigns?

A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received $535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with
Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show.

Shareholders and executives of Solyndra, a green energy company producing solar panels, fundraised for and donated to the Obama administration to
the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama backer who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the president’s election campaign, is one of Solyndra’s primary investors. Kaiser himself donated $53,500 to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, split between the DSCC and Obama For America. Kaiser also made several visits to the White House and appeared at some White House events next to Obama officials.

Campaign finance records show Kaiser and Solyndra executives and board members donated $87,050 total to Obama’s election campaign.

Yep, it seems like there’s one rule for the political class and its cronies and another one for the rest of us. If, say, you’re Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt the father-in-law of the British prime minister you can make getting on for a £1000 a week from the wind farms on your estates; if you’re the wife of the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg you can make hundreds of thousands of pounds as a legal adviser to the Spanish wind farm company whose unsightly bat-chomping eco-crucifixes are going to be wrecking the British countryside.

If on the other, hand you’re an ordinary punter, you’re expected to sit there and take it as the cost of your energy is doubled, your standard of living lowered, the countryside you love is ruined, and the destruction of your ailing economy is accelerated by the policies of a Government which no longer gives a damn what you think about anything.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts
  2. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  3. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  4. Green Jobs. What Green Jobs?

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

President Perry or President Bachmann? It’s the only question remaining | James Delingpole

August 28, 2011

On US talk radio the other evening, I happened to mention to my hosts how much better things were looking in America, now that they had Rick Perry as a voting option. President Obama is toast – I think on that we can all agree. But up until quite recently, we weren’t exactly spoilt for choice as to who might replace him. Now that Bachmann has shown she has legs and Perry has finally ended his shilly-shallying as to whether or not to run, Americans can look to the future with at least a glimmer of hope.

But how much hope, that’s the question. I can’t say that either is my dream candidate. My dream candidate would either have been Paul Ryan or Allen West. Yeah yeah, too young and inexperienced to run, yadda yadda, better chance next time, I’ve heard all that before. The point though, surely, is that there may not be a next time. This next presidency is it: the Big One; the one that will decide whether America – and by extent the free West – gets to climb out of the Depression and spend a few more decades in the sun, or whether the Barbarians storm through the gates and we enter a new Dark Ages.

Anyway, when I mentioned Perry’s name there was what sounded like a deathly silence. Perhaps I was imagining it but I think what I was hearing was the scepticism and uncertainty a lot of Republicans and independents are feeling towards Perry right now.

When I heard him speak in Dallas a few months ago at the Heritage Foundation’s Resource Bank conference I was quite impressed. I like Texas. I like the spirit of Texas. It is – as Perry was at pains to point out – the Anti-California, which is to say it is virulently anti-regulation, pro-liberty, pro-low-taxation. This is why – duh – Texas employment levels have risen in the last decade even as California’s have plummeted. Perry was most tickled at the fact that the Californian state government had sent a delegation to Texas to see whether it could learn anything from its success.

What I liked about Perry was his folksy but straight-talking manner. Everyone hears a lot of his fellow Texan Dubya in him. But I heard also the odd echo of Reagan. It was all a polished act of course. All that naturalness and ease, I got the distinct impression, had been very carefully practised and worked on. Still, he talked the kind of language we wanted to hear, that was the important thing: fiscal conservatism; small government; less regulation. Definitely not another Dubya which is the last thing America needs right now – one of those notional conservatives who spends more like a Democrat and forges the usual corporatist alliances with the usual vested interests. The US needs a Tea Party guy, not a RINO.

Is Perry the real deal, though, or a just a plausible imposter? Too many people whose judgement I respect have since told me that there’s something slippery about him. He doesn’t honour promises. He’s another corporate shill. He’s offhand and ungrateful to anyone he thinks is of no use to him. He doesn’t pay his dues. These do not sound to me like signs and portents of the Reagan Mk II America and the world so badly needs.

Then again, he is sound on AGW. Bloody sound: (H/T Climate Depot)

Fielding audience questions after brief remarks that dwelled largely on fiscal and economic issues, Perry encountered one skeptic who said he was quoting from Perry’s 2010 book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America From Washington, then asked whether misgivings about climate science fueled distrust of federal research in general.

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry answered. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Nope: nothing to disagree with there.

And Bachmann? Well, I suppose there are worse crimes than wishing a dead rock star “Happy Birthday.” More than that, I just don’t know enough about her to say, yet – except that if America is going to have its first female president, I’d much rather it were her than one called President Clinton.

UPDATE.

I’ve decided I don’t like this blog post much. I agree with all the stuff about Perry but unfortunately I wrote the headline first, then changed my mind when I wrote the piece, but couldn’t change the headline because it was already in the system waiting to go because I accidentally pressed the send button. T0 be honest, I’m still much, much more excited about the possibility that Paul Ryan might still stand. And yes, I’m not ruling out Ron Paul either – though I have serious reservations about his foreign policy positions.

Related posts:

  1. Allen West: America’s next black president?
  2. A US president with wandering hands? It would never happen
  3. David Dimbleby interview: celebrating 30 years of ‘Question Time’
  4. I’m glad that the BNP’s Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time

3 thoughts on “President Perry or President Bachmann? It’s the only question remaining”

  1. John says:28th August 2011 at 3:48 amYou are total idiot. Come on over to Texas and Louisiana and see the pollution these refineries are spewing into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, year after year, for the past 50 years. Come on over to Texas where we have had 30 straight days of record 100 degree plus days with 1 inch of rain. Come on over to Texas where the worst drought in the history of Texas has cost Texas farmers $5 billion dollars in loast crops that have burned up. You are a freaking libertarian idiot.
  2. Ned says:28th August 2011 at 9:07 pmJames, I got introduced to you via CSPAN2 the other night, so I can’t say I know much about you. As a libertarian, I’d be interested in what you have to say about supporting candidates that have a strong socially conservative agenda. Personally, it scares to me to support candidates like Bachman and Perry who call for a smaller role of Federal Gov’t in people’s lives and then at the same time have a laundry list of socially conservative laws they want to keep implemented/enforced from a Federal level. To me, true conservatives (aka libertarians) should encourage and nudge people to live their free lives to the highest of moral integrity with accountability on the individual to make the right choices in life and at the same time reduce the role of the fed govt by liberalizing laws on drugs use, prostitution, gay marriage, etc. Socially conservative laws at a federal level are ineffective for the most part and grow the power of the Federal gov’t while stealing resources that could otherwise be put to good use (border patrol, infrastructure improvement, etc.)Also, I’d be interested in your take on how you think the Fed Govt can and should support the economy. I back “The Economist’s” magazine’s point of view that in the short term we need stimulus from the Gov’t and at the same time create a game plan to sharply reduce fed govt spending in 3-5 years time by cutting Defense, reforming Healthcare, cutting subsidies, etc.

    thanks,
    Ned

  3. Gordon says:29th August 2011 at 5:39 amDroughts, heatwaves, crop failures are all ignored. But minute the first drops of snow lands somewhere in this world, expect Delingpole to start foaming that the scientists are in on a scam and we’re actually global cooling.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations