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.

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.

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.

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?

 

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

O’Bama? Oh Puh-lease!

Barack Obama plants a tree at the Presidential Residence in Dublin (Photo: Reuters)

Barack Obama plants a tree at the Presidential Residence in Dublin (Photo: Reuters)

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when hes in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of a Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

And in the Middle East, where he is Al-Barak Hussein Obama, Protector of the Holy Shrine, Smiter of the Kuffar, Lion of the Desert, Tent-Loving-Aficionado-of-the-Oversweetened-Coffee, Chomper of Sheeps Eyeballs, Restorer of the Caliphate.

Etc.

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime often in the course of one Downing Street reception the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

My colleague Damian Thompson appears to be under the impression that Obama is a great guy because he said nice things about the Queen. Look, I think the Queen’s great too, but did it really not occur to my distinguished colleague (and editor) that there might have been a hint of an ulterior motive here? Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like some presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Related posts:

  1. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  2. Cap and trade: which part of ‘We can’t afford it’ doesn’t Obama understand?
  3. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  4. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret

25 thoughts on “O’Bama? Oh puh-lease!”

  1. David Donald says:24th May 2011 at 10:39 amDear James,
    Superlative,-but I think he could be the new St paul ,if we are not careful.
  2. Neil says:24th May 2011 at 10:44 amHear! Hear! we, your American cousins heartly agree!
  3. Paul Herrmann says:24th May 2011 at 10:48 amnothing more to say, other than AMEN…
  4. Mac McKenna says:24th May 2011 at 11:51 amJust read your blog. Laugh…………………..I nearly pissed myself, and that is something when you are on dialysis!!!!!!!!!!!!! To the point and never a true word spoken. No doubt he’ll tell the Queen that he has found out he has English roots dating back to the 17th Century. A whippet breeder from Salford, called T’old Barmy Barry from dow’nt road next tud pennines cafe, Ye knows, twon that looks like he’s bin dow’nt mines.
  5. Mac says:24th May 2011 at 1:25 pmJames, it’s nice to see there is at least one real Brit left across the pond. I spent many summers in England during my youth, dividing my time between my grandparents in London and my Aunt in the IOW. I haven’t been back for some time, but I was deeply saddened on my last trip to see how much the country has changed in the last 30 years. It’s as if some sort of slow malaise has crept across what was once the best country in the world. Everyone is so concerned about being tolerant, they are blind to the loss of their heritage and culture.

    I heard more Farsi than English the last time I visited London. The only resistance I saw to the plague of political correctness came in the form of a rather gruff Scot. He marched down the stairs of a number 52 bus (the last one that evening) and came to the defense of a man who had sprinted to catch it and has being berated in barely intelligible English by the Pakistani ticket man. Myself and another American stood up and supported him and the man got to stay and catch his ride home. What amazed me was the shock on the faces of the other Brits – they were actually embarrassed that the Scot had dared to say something to the Pakistani. Sad, really.

    Furthermore, it seemed like everywhere I went people were actively defending this slow decline into mediocrity. Even in Wales (unbelievably), there was blatant kowtowing to the new world order. I was able to actually locate some old school Brits in Salisbury, and felt like I’d gone back to 1968 or so. So I know there are probably some over there yet.

    For the past 10 years I’ve watched the signs here in the USA. We are headed down the same path as you lot, and we haven’t bothered to consult history. Our cities are becoming third world mini-nations, and what was once a melting pot has become a salad bowl. Otherwise intelligent people are buying into the socialistic rhetoric and there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop this decline.

    Obviously, the blame falls squarely on the hippies. I was just a kid in the 60s, but even to me it was obvious the world was changing.

    Keep up the fight.

  6. Jane Franks says:24th May 2011 at 1:59 pmRight on! I’m an American and share your views as do a growing number of our citizens. Thank you for being honest about our undesireable president, and be assured there are many true blue Americans who are honest and truly love Britain for Britain. And many of us have “true” roots in your country!
  7. Dave Edwards says:24th May 2011 at 3:51 pmThank you for having the courage to say what the American press refuses to!
  8. Cardinal Mazarin says:24th May 2011 at 4:23 pmThis is nuts. There’s no analysis, no perspective, no facts – just a raw howl of hate for Obama. What’d he do to you? Run over your dog?
  9. An American Admirer says:24th May 2011 at 5:22 pmMr. Delingpole, this blog is brilliant, witty and so refreshing. Thank you and keep it up!
  10. JimmyGiro says:24th May 2011 at 6:53 pm@ Mac,

    Where on the IOW?

    I too was a child of the 60s, and regard the Island as a cultural paradise at that time. The Island has NEVER returned a socialist MP, and I think the absence of that religion had left us in that sublime state.

    These days however, the change by political subversion is painful to witness, like the ravishing of the shire, in middle-earth; there were 8,000 votes for the socialist candidate in the last election here! Total treachery.

  11. Nancy says:24th May 2011 at 8:03 pmAs an American, I have to say bravo to this very funny and brilliant column. I agree with Mac – I visited London in 1978 and 2010 and I couldn’t believe the difference. For one thing, I could hardly even find a native Englishman in 2010 – everyone I met seemed to be from somewhere else! Are all these foreigners trying to adopt British culture, or are they just trying to preserve their separate little cultures under the cloak of “diversity”? The tour guides in 1978 were proud of their country and heritage. The tour guides in 2010 were just making jokes about Americans – which I didn’t mind by the way, some of them were pretty funny, but I did not sense the same pride in British culture and accomplishments. And we as Americans are caught in this same political correctness/diversity madness. Before someone out there accuses me of being racist, I am a member of a minority group in America, but I consider myself “American” before anything else. Yay for the Royal Family for not inviting our President to the wedding – he and his wife have shown contempt for our British friends.
  12. Mac says:24th May 2011 at 8:08 pm@JimmyGiro

    Back then I stayed mostly in Shanklin, where my aunt and uncle had a small bungalow. They moved around over the years, but never left the island. I remember collecting sand at the Needles, and as a teenager walking down to the ferry (in Cowes, I think) to watch the Swedish school girls arrive. I spent much more time in London, wandering around Shepherds Bush Market, the Serpentine, and Holland Park – and riding the tubes all over creation.

    I like the Tolkien reference, but it sounds like we need to skip to the chapter entitled “The Scouring of the Shire” and clear out Saruman (who do you pick to play him?) and company. My wife is half-British as well (Welsh to my English) and we had planned to spend some of our retirement years there as I am eligible for dual-citizenship. However, now it seems positively dismal, and horrifically expensive. I might be able to rent something in a caravan park, but that would be the only way I could afford it. I will, of course, have to come and inspect things personally but I’m afraid of completely spoiling my memory of it.

    My most recent visit was in the mid-90s and it was to attend my Nan’s funeral. Things were getting grim in London by then but I had hoped the countryside would still be free. Regrettably, it sounds as though even the archetypical British village is a thing of the past.

    BUT, I have seen the EDL at work and I have to give them some kudos. Maybe if enough people wake up soon enough, the “Politically Correct” crowd can be cowed and some semblance of Anglican society can be saved.

  13. Joe King says:24th May 2011 at 9:28 pm(Disclosure: I’m American.) Bravo! Replicate yourself, and send some of the clones over here. You have opened my eyes about Tony Blair. (I already knew about Obama.) It makes sense. Regarding this Obama trip, I noticed that there was no condescending pat on the queen’s shoulder by Michelle O this time around. You are right that Obama in reality has no use for the UK, at least not as long as it’s a country of greatness and its people take pride in their tremendous heritage. He feels the same about the US. I would like to see the bust of Churchill returned as soon as possible. This is not pleasant to say, but from the sound of things, the Brits could use a bit more of ol’ Winston themselves. (After reading this article, I believe that just maybe you really are always right.)
  14. JimmyGiro says:25th May 2011 at 12:13 am@Mac,

    All my childhood was in Newport, though as kids we walked freely as far as our dinner would carry us.

    I too remember the Swedish girls; they were later joined by Danes, even Spanish and Japanese. All part of the ‘EF’ exchange scheme. Then a Danish child was raped by a man from the mainland, and that pretty episode of summer ebbed away.

    The Island which had its very first armed robbery in the 80s, is now littered with CCTVs, and the police force from Hampshire, prides itself on being the most gay friendly. They are also fairly expensive to run, and thanks to ‘elf and safety, they insist that the little festivals and carnivals that made up the Island’s summer culture, are well policed or not allowed. And the cost is shared by the organizers, who naturally can’t afford them, thus the Island gets duller and more neurotic.

    The wild life has changed also, not so many little birds, but lots of sea gulls; or should they be called gutter gulls, since they seem to have given up on the sea?

    The local council are the only growing business on the Island, and I suspect they fill their coffers by accepting lots of mainland city overspills, thus the Island is becoming a dumping ground for lost souls. They’re building 6,000 new cheap homes, to become next decades slum estates no doubt. This is on top of the fact that at best there are 10 JobSeekers for every vacancy on the Island; with a high spot of 50 JobSeekers to every job opportunity in January 2010!

    Who plays Saruman, he comes in many guises, but he always leaves with a golden “fuck off”.

    It would be worth visiting the Island, not for a golden quiet and charming holiday, but more for an anthropological object lesson in the vagaries of social engineering, by self serving shysters.

    All the best from the sunny IOW.

  15. Mac says:25th May 2011 at 12:39 pm@JimmyGiro

    You paint a very bleak picture, my friend. Perhaps it is sadder still, in that many of my relatives on the IOW seem as oblivious to these changes as the proverbial frog in a pot. These are professional and intelligent folk who fail to realize their peril and view opinions such as ours as alarmist. I tend to agree with them but that doesn’t make the alarm a false one.

    I will return to the island and see for myself. I used to know some of the Hampshire Constabulary and it pains me no end to hear that the police are complicit in this PC nonsense. My great grandfather and his father were both London Bobbies. They are likely rolling in their graves.

    Perhaps you could pop over to Avalon and wake Arthur. I fear it is time.

    Cheers,

    Mac

  16. Andrew Ryan says:25th May 2011 at 3:37 pm“He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.”

    I don’t understand what ‘roles’ James is referring to here. Does he mean ‘If Obama was the one with the power rather than, say, David Cameron’? If so, this strikes me as bizarre. Does James see the UK as the ‘dominant partner’ in the Special Relationship.

    And if Obama is being a slavish suck-up by visiting the Queen, does that mean that the Queen is too? Does she get the same criticism when she’s on state visits?

    Finally, the very fact that James needed to exaggerate so much about Obama’s actions in Ireland and Africa lends a clue that he didn’t actually have much to work with. Obama spent a day or say in Ireland, he had a Guinness in a town where he genuinely DID have an ancestor… and that’s about it. He didn’t adopt an Irish accent, put on a green hat, tell Irish people that he was one of them.

  17. Widdershinnz says:26th May 2011 at 4:01 pmWhat a racist jackass. I hope carnival barkers piss on you.
  18. Evan Marks says:26th May 2011 at 5:49 pmThis was the first article I’ve ever read by you. Fantastic! In fact, it was read on the air by a talk host on one of the usual talk radio stations i regularly listen to. I will be following you from now on. So few writers, media wonks, or even office workers have the courage to criticize Obama, or should I say O’Bama, for fear of being called a racist, Even if the criticism is unrelated to race. God help us all around the world if this guy is re-elected. Thanks for a very entertaining article.
    Evan
  19. David Arnett says:26th May 2011 at 9:00 pmVery good work. I featured a preview and posted a link on http://www.TulsaToday.com to you. We are the oldest (est. 1996) independent (owner/operator) local news service on the Internet (years before Al Gore even invented the thing). Not really a blog as we pay writers statewide, we hosted 2.5 million page views in 2010 and are now running at about 1,000 unique visitors per day which is not bad for a local site of general interest. It may not that big a deal, but I wanted you to know that here in the heart of America (what some call “fly-over” country) we appreciate your work.
  20. Gordon Rabon says:27th May 2011 at 3:17 pm@ Andrew Ryan

    “Finally, the very fact that James needed to exaggerate so much about Obama’s actions in Ireland and Africa lends a clue that he didn’t actually have much to work with.”

    Don’t expect too much from James. His comedic performance on the Horizon documentary shows the only information he works with are from his own opinions. Won’t be long before he starts advocating the return of the Confederacy in the US and Nazism in Europe. Judging by this piece, James could even be the star columnist for Der Stürmer.

  21. Mac says:27th May 2011 at 5:17 pm@Gordon and Andrew, did you guys take a look at the top of the page? It says BLOG, from which you should infer that anything written is “opinion” unless otherwise cited.

    As to your liberal hyperbole, turnabout is fair play. If you look in the mirror you might just catch a glimpse of Goebbels.

  22. Gordon Rabon says:28th May 2011 at 9:27 am@Mac

    Mac, opinion is what I wrote. Looks like you make about as much sense as your grand master Delingpole. Unfortunately for some of you, his opinions are taken as fact.

  23. Andrew Ryan says:28th May 2011 at 2:30 pmMac, I DID take it to be opinion. That’s what I reacted to – his opinion. If you want to argue that his opinion is completely divorced from any reference to facts, then go ahead and make that argument. Otherwise, as Gordon points out, your post doesn’t really make sense. All my points stand, none of which you addressed.

    David Arnett, I’m afraid that Al Gore’s work in creating (not inventing) the Internet precedes the establishment of your site by almost two decades.

  24. Mac says:31st May 2011 at 1:04 pmGood God. Have they stopped teaching History, English, and Social Studies altogether? If this is an example of the new liberal world order we really are doomed.
  25. Frank Tavos says:1st June 2011 at 5:28 pm@ Mac:

    Are you really that surprised? Surely you know that the left has always had its head firmly lodged up its @rse. That’s the only way to explain how they can believe in the codswallop they’re continually spouting.

Comments are closed.

Only a Nutter like Gordon Brown Would Think It’s a Good Idea to Scrap Trident

Do I sleep more safely in my bed at night knowing Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent? To be perfectly honest, no. Of all the most clear and present dangers to British security right now, I cannot immediately think of any that could be averted by the despatch of a Trident missile with a warhead the equivalent of 8 Hiroshimas.

But the reason for that is, like you I imagine, I happen to live in a place called “Now” rather than “The Future”. In “Now”, there are many grave threats which prey on our minds daily.

Among the obvious ones are:

Being blown up on the bus by home grown suicide bombers from somewhere like Bradford, Luton or Dudley.

Being blown up on an aeroplane by home grown suicide bombers from somewhere like Bradford, Luton or Dudley.

Being blown up on the tube by home grown suicide bombers from somewhere like Bradford, Luton or Dudley.

Being blown up in Northern Ireland by one of the resurgent offshoots of the IRA.

Running away screaming from a lecture on global warming by George Monbiot only to find yourself being sideswiped and crushed to death by the enormous, badger-like bum of eco campaigner the Hon Sir Jonathan Porritt.

And so on.

But just because these represent a terrible threat now does not mean they will do so in the future. Our Islamist brethren may have decided that, after all, they don’t want to force those of us in the Dar Al-Harb to grow beards or dress in tents and submit to the will of Allah. (Yeah right). Jonathan Porritt may have lost a little weight round his posterior, or even taken over from Jeremy Clarkson presenting Top Gear. That’s the thing about the future: it’s a mystery; anything could happen; we just don’t know.

But we can make educated guesses. One educated guess we can make after Barack Obama’s speech to the UN yesterday, is that the US is about to go through a period of foreign policy retrenchment in which it plans happily to leave its former allies (Israel, Britain, nonentities like that) in the lurch, using the diplomatic space bought by making conciliatory, we-feel-your-pain noises to basket cases like North Korea, Iran and Russia.

It’s a damned good money-saving scam, I’ll grant Obama that. But it might not work. It might WELL not work. And then what do we do?

The same could be said of our increasingly wayward, shambling Prime Minister’s offer to save a few bob – sorry, contribute to world peace – by scrapping one of our four Trident submarines. It will save, perhaps, £2 billion – which makes it sound like a pretty good deal now, but what about the future?

Gordon Brown doesn’t care about the future much because he hasn’t got one. But the rest of us do – or should.

Related posts:

  1. Gordon Brown: ‘Re-elect me and I will hang all paedophiles, restore grammar schools and create permanent world peace.’
  2. Any Questions
  3. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs
  4. The BBC: Al Gore’s UK propaganda mouthpiece

 

Why Did Congressman Joe Wilson Need to Apologize for Calling Obama a Liar?

At the weekend I spoke on California talk radio KSFO 560 FM about Lockerbie, Mandelson and other terrible things with one of my favourite hosts Barbara Simpson – aka The Babe In The Bunker. All was going swimmingly until I made the mistake of saying I thought President Obama was a fundamentally decent man, who just happened to have an unusually extensive, sub-Adamms-Family creepfest of disgusting libtard scuzzballs working for his administration.

No one disputed the second part (how could you? items for my defence: Nancy Pelosi, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Van Jones….) but the first suggestion prompted an instant outraged call from one listener. And rightly so, as I was quickly forced to concede. Just because Obama looks great in a suit, has a rich, deep (if increasingly soporific and platitudinous) speaking voice, a wife with well-sculpted arms, an interesting breed of dog and two cute daughters does not in anyway prove that he is a fundamentally nice guy. In fact, the longer he’s in power, the more I suspect otherwise.

As Andrew McCarthy so amusingly put it the other day at NRO’s Corner, “Obama is not Mr Magoo”. In this case, McCarthy was talking about the risibly lax vetting procedures the president applies to the appalling libtard cronies he wants to appoint as Czars, such as the recently resigned 9/11 Truther, watermelon and black activist Van Jones.

“The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn’t one of those things that just happen. This is Barack “Transparency” Obama gaming the system.”

But he might just as well have been addressing any other aspect of the President’s John Gotti approach to politics, which is to say, POTUS gets to be the smiley guy in the nice threads who wouldn’t hurt a flea while his minions take care of all the concrete boots, horse’s heads in beds, and such like.

The fact that Representative Joe Wilson felt compelled to apologize for calling Obama a liar during a televised address speaks volumes for President Obama’s success in portraying himself as a kind of noble, lofty, honest figurehead, far above the grubby business of mere politics. But Obama isn’t. And as several commentators – including Kevin Williamson at National Review and Toby Harnden – have now amply demonstrated, Obama almost certainly WAS lying in this case when he said that his Obamacare plans would not result in US taxpayers forking out more for illegal immigrants.

“I’m a big believer we all make mistakes,” said Obama, magnanimously accepting Wilson’s apology.

But where was the mistake?

Related posts:

  1. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  2. Obama: when all else fails, blame Dubya and the CIA
  3. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

 

Burqa Ban: What Barack Obama Could Learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam

Almost every idea that ever came out of France has been bad for America, from the structuralist philosophical gibberish which has poisoned US academe to the grotesquely over-regulated tax and spend socialism which is now ruining the US economy. But if there’s one area where the French do get it SO right it’s in their uncompromising approach to Islam.

President Sarkozy once again showed the way yesterday when in a presidential address to France’s two houses of parliament, he said the burqa is not welcome in his country and should be banned.

As he rightly went on to say the full-body garment which makes women in Afghanistan look like a cross between a prison cell and a walking tent is “not a sign of religion” but a “sign of subservience.” He added: “We cannot have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social ife, deprived of identity.”

Compare and contrast, the appalling cultural appeasement of President Obama’s speech in Cairo on June 4 when he boasted that the United States prized freedom of religion and would not “tell people what to wear.” And there was I thinking it was the French who were supposed to be the surrender monkeys, not the Americans.

Was there ever greater proof that, where the great clash of civilisations is concerned, President Obama is turning out to be the Islamists’ useful idiot par excellence?

Does Barack Hussein Obama really not understand that supposed “freedom” he is granting US Muslim women to wear the veil is in fact the most surefire way of guaranteeing their continued subservience to their men folk and their failure to integrate with the broader society?

It’s for precisely this reason – would that the rest of Europe had the courage! – that France bans religious head coverings in state schools. France understands, as so many in the pusillanimous, multi-culti West do not, that female Muslim girls of school age need protecting from the heavy pressure put on them by male relatives to wear the veil. Banning the veil in French schools is not the sign of an oppressive state taking away religious freedom. It is a rare example of a government setting a moral example and standing up for freedom: a girl’s freedom to choose whether she wants to spend the rest of her life in a kind of religious apartheid or whether she wants to integrate more closely with the host culture.

That President Obama cannot understand this reflects disgracefully on his supposedly vast intelligence. As a Democrat, he ought at the very least to be championing progressive values, and foremost among those values – for which generations of feminists have fought so hard  – is female equality. So here, just to remind you, is what he really thinks about female equality – at least where America’s Muslim girls are concerned:

“The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.”

In other words: typical Obama lazy moral equivocation and disingenuous fluff. These “some in the West” who believe that “a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal” are straw men. They simply don’t exist. In parts of the Islamic world, on the other hand, such men are rife. And hair coverings are the very least of their women folks problems. How does being dressed head to toe in a sack compare with being banned from driving; or murdered for trying to attend school; or being stoned to death for adultery because a bunch of local lads have decided to gang rape you?
America, you won’t often hear me say this but in this particular case it’s true. Where Islam is concerned, you have a lot to learn from those pesky cheese-eaters.

Obama’s Won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize and I’m still reeling at the shock. Most of us are, I should think.

Here are my theories as to how it might have come about:

1. Unlike in most of the rest of the world  Øbama Køøl Aid (TM) remains Oslo’s most popular beverage.

2. The Norwegian prize committee’s sense of irony is growing ever more sophisticated, as it hinted when it gave the prize in 2002 to comedy ex-president Jimmy Carter, and hinted more strongly when it gave the prize in 2007 to climate-fear-promoting comedy failed-president Al Gore.

3. The other candidates on the shortlist were Robert Mugabe; Osama Bin Laden; Ahmed Jibril; and the late Pol Pot.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine
  2. Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes
  3. The Nobel Prize: way deadlier, more damaging and evil than dynamite
  4. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?