We Won Brexit but the Same Dreary Losers Are Still in Charge

There is still much dispute as to precisely what it was that persuaded 17.4 million Britons to vote for Brexit last year. Some may have done it to regain Britain’s sovereignty, some to curb immigration, some because they realised correctly that everyone on the Remain side of the argument from one-hit-wonder gobshite Bob Geldof to that preening renter of overpriced desert islands Richard Branson was a weapons-grade, copper-bottomed tick.

But here’s one thing of which we can be pretty sure: nobody voted Brexit – the biggest public vote in favour of anything in UK history – in order to get more of the same old, same old.

Brexit was, perhaps more than anything, a cri de coeur from the silent majority who had been ignored for too long. It sprung from the same impulse that saw Donald Trump win the U.S. presidency – what political economist (and friend to the Donald) Ted Malloch has argued is a paradigm shift in global politics.

If you had to sum up that impulse in a phrase, it would go something like “Enough of this shit, already.”

Sure we might differ on our preferred solutions, but we’re all agreed what the general problem is. For too long a remote, democratically unaccountable, smug, corrupt, self-serving liberal elite has been making all the rules and all the running, while the rest of us just feel poorer, less fairly treated and more constrained by stupid, politically correct rules, regulations, and taxes in a failing system which wastes lots of our money yet gives us little in return.

The good news is that, against the odds, we won Brexit.

The bad news is that in Britain we’ve still ended up with the same old, same old bunch of tossers at the top.

In the immediate aftermath of the extraordinary palace coup in July last year, where the losing faction of the Conservative party who’d voted Remain somehow managed to slime their way into all the key positions of government – Remainer Theresa May as Prime Minister, Remainer Philip Hammond as Chancellor, Remainer Amber Rudd as Home Secretary – I dashed off a despairing piece called “Brexit won the battle: But now we’ve lost the war.”

Later I wondered whether I’d gone slightly over the top. (Something, as you know, I’m always careful to avoid.) After all, Theresa May seemed to be making all the right noises – “Brexit means Brexit” and so on.

But after yesterday’s budget, I’m disappointed to learn that I was right all along…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Handbags, Chocolates, Housework – My Tips for a Happy Women’s Day

Happy International Women’s Day, Girls. As a member of the only sex on earth that loves you and cares about you and isn’t secretly plotting to undermine you at every turn, I’d like to offer you some pro tips on how to get the most of this very special day

Don’t Go On A March

Why would you go on a march? Marches are, like, ew. They play havoc with your feet if you’re wearing heels; the noise – all that shrieking and chanting and screeching – is like the extra, hot-floored room in hell where they keep all the cats; the preponderance of blue hair and voluminous cellulite is simply unspeakable. And anyway, what exactly are you protesting against? Basically, you won. Enjoy it!

Celebrate Your Victory

What victory? Why only the fact that if you were born a woman in the West you won life’s lottery. Apart from having longer orgasms and a longer lifespan than men and basically – secretly – being in charge of men, you get more favourable treatment in the courts, you’re more likely to go to university, you benefit from positive discrimination in the workplace and, of course, from the fact that the pay gap is a myth.

Buy a Handbag; or Some Chocolate; or go to a Spa; or Whatever

Seriously, just do whatever the hell makes you happy and gets you off our case. Sure we (men, that is) may pretend to be shocked when you let slip just how much you paid for that small, shiny leather carrying device with the handles on it and that which clearly matters to you so very, very much. But we’re not. We’re just relieved a) because it means we’re now spared the horror of having to choose one for you ourselves (and inevitably getting it wrong because we just don’t get handbags, we just don’t, OK?) and b) if you’re happy we’re happy. A man is only as happy as his least happy child, they say. This applies, with knobs on, to his wives and girlfriends.

Have a Drink. But just the One…

Bad men like drunk girls because they’re easy prey. But really, it’s not a good look. In fact, apart from the blue hair and the let-yourself-go body fat, possibly the very worst consequence of modern feminism is this idea that girls have a right to get just as drunk and behave just as outrageously and boorishly as boys. I think the notion of such a “right” would be more defensible if it came with an acceptance of the consequences. For example, there has been a spate of court cases in Britain – brought by our feminazi Crown Prosecution Service – in which perfectly innocent young men have been dragged into the dock and charged with rape on account of complaints by drunken young missies who led them on and later changed their minds once they’d sobered up slightly. Not fair. Not fair, at all. Most recent victim is Lewis Tappenden, 24, who nearly went to prison and whose reputation was ruined because of a false accusation by an 18-year old student who told friends that she was going “out to pull” but who decided after the event “I just wasn’t in to it.” Allison Pearson is well worth reading on this…

Read the rest at Breitbart.

President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change – Whatever Ivanka Says…

If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers. With jewels inlaid in their spiral horns and maybe some magical attachment that plays the collected works of Taylor Swift while she rides.

So I totally get where President Trump is coming from when I read reports that, under the influence of Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, he has toned the phrasing of an Executive Order so that it no longer includes derogatory comments about the utterly useless and pointless climate deal signed in Paris in 2015 by Barack Obama.

Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order,” sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanka and her husband “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reports. Now, the executive order will have no mention of the so-called Paris agreement.

If it’s just a case of casual daughter-pleasing, fine. But if he actually means it than we should all start to worry.

I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.

He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons.

But it’s all very well having good instincts and good intentions. The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

NASA to Stop Shilling for Big Green, Restart Exploring Space…

NASA said its International Space Station partners, which include Canada, Japan, and the European Space Agency, are aware of a Moscow proposal to cut the number of Russian cosmonauts at the ISS from three to two
AFP

“And would sir like a regular or large fries, with that? And how about a McFlurry?”

I do hope that Gavin “Toast” Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), followed the advice I gave him a few months back. Because it now looks very much as if he and many of his colleagues are about to face exciting new job opportunities, hopefully in areas best suited to their talents, such as the challenging world of fast-food retail.

Yes, as we predicted, NASA is going to be stripped of the two main roles it enjoyed under the Obama administration – Muslim outreach and green propaganda – and return to its original day (and night) job as an agency dedicated to space exploration.

The U.S. Senate passed legislation recently cutting funding for NASA’s global warming research.

The House is expected to pass the bill, and President Trump will likely sign it. Supporters say it “re-balances” NASA’s budget back toward space exploration and away from global warming and earth science research. Republicans plan to end the more than $2 billion NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate.

“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, told E&E News. “I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that.”

Before we shed too many tears for the plight of Gavin Schmidt and the rest of his global warming research team, though, let’s just pause to reflect on how much damage they have done to the cause of honest science over the years and what eye-wateringly vast quantities of our money they have wasted.

A good place to start is this excellent piece by Steve Goddard, entitled The Pause Is Real: NASA Temperatures Aren’t.

Here is the damning chart that says it all:

Screen-Shot-2017-02-18-at-6.34.24-AM

How did a supposedly respectable government agency get away with such blatant fraud?

Well, one answer is that it was encouraged to do so by the US government which paid its Earth Science research division $2 billion a year, while giving only $781.5 million and $826.7 million to its astrophysics and space technology divisions. Obama wanted “global warming” to be real and dangerous: and – lo! – thanks to the magic of his crack prestidigitators at NASA, NOAA and the rest, it was.

But the longer answer is that this is what happens when green ideologues are allowed to infiltrate and hijack government institutions. As we’ve reported before, NASA has been caught out fiddling temperature data on “an unbelievable scale”. So too has NOAA. That’s because their global warming departments are mostly run by true believers – scientists who want to show the world that global warming is a major threat in urgent need of more grant funding, regardless of what the actual temperature data shows. Hence the many, many adjustments.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Talking the Trump Revolution with Ted Malloch – ‘Clear Another Space on Mt Rushmore…’

malloch
AP/Frank Augstein

Donald Trump is going to win a second term in 2020: you read it here, first.

I, in turn, heard it straight from the lips of an administration insider – Dr Ted Malloch, the business economics professor and prospective US ambassador to the European Union, who advised Trump from the early stages of his presidential campaign, and whom I’ve interviewed for this week’s Delingpole podcast.

Malloch is an ardent conservative of impeccable pedigree. I asked him what message he had for all those NeverTrump conservative types who still maintain that Hillary would have made the better President.

Malloch: Get over it and move on. It’s what we’ve got. And guess what? It’s not for four years – it’s gonna be for eight years. He has already instigated his re-election campaign and I think I’ll break to you what the motto’s going to be. Can you guess?

Delingpole: Um – Make America Great Again Again?

Malloch: Keep America Great. Which has a certain assumption built into it: that during the next four years we’re going to achieve a great deal. And that then we just have to maintain that kind of trajectory. So this argument about what kind of conservative Trump is – is he a purist? – first of all he’s not a political philosopher and doesn’t purport to be an intellectual…This is not your father’s Oldsmobile. This is not your father’s Republican party. This is Donald Trump’s Republican party and it’s going to be a party that is more pragmatic, that is less ideological, that is more oriented towards national identity, towards States-centric international relations and towards a degree of populism. So I would say ‘Like it or leave it.’

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Thinks We’re All Fascists. Cheers!

Fascists
Scott Barbour/Getty

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has suggested that the people who voted for Donald Trump and Brexit are a bunch of fascists.

Good.

Thank you, Your Grace!

It’s always nice when someone of such eminent ecclesiastical authority confirms from on high something which many of us long suspected: that the Establishment really just does not have a fucking clue – and that that’s why we were so right to vote for Trump and Brexit.

If Welby had wanted to play a clever game, what he would have done in his speech to the General Synod is keep resolutely schtum about his position on contentious political matters.

Sure, many of us could have predicted where his politics probably lay: he is, after all, an Old Etonian and a former corporatist stooge (yes, oil industry – but most of them swing left, I’m afraid), evidently gifted with the emollience and the career-safe views which are the only way a churchman can climb up the greasy poll of the Church of England these days.

So yes, we could have guessed he was probably a pro-Remain man and an anti-Donald Trump man, as pretty much every Establishment type is. But up until the moment at the General Synod when he called us all out as fascists, we couldn’t be absolutely sure…

How good does it feel to know that the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks I’m a fascist and that the people who voted for Donald Trump are fascists and that the ones who are going to vote for Geert Wilders are fascists?

It feels absolutely brilliant, actually, because what it does is help put these most extraordinary times we’re living through in their proper context.

Think about it: even a reasonably educated 15-year-old with the most rudimentary historical knowledge knows that fascism was about Il Duce, Blackshirts stomping the streets of thirties Italy, about poison gas dropped on Abyssinian villagers, about ethnic cleansing in Libya, about the terrifying enlargement of the State, about rapid militarisation, about aggressive nationalism, about the sacrifice of young men in pointless wars Italy was ill-equipped to win…

So clearly, the “f” word could scarcely be further off-beam to describe the movements which led to Brexit and the Donald Trump. These weren’t endorsements of the kind of arbitrary authority and abuse of state power we saw in the 1930s but rather very explicit rejections of them.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Would You Buy a Used Carbon Tax from Hank Paulson?

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

“I screwed up the economy, your jobs and your mortgages so – hey – I’m just the guy you can trust to tell you what to do about climate change!”

That was my take home message of a piece Hank Paulson penned for the New York Times a couple of years ago on the urgent need for a carbon tax.

Two years on – with fellow GOP Establishment stooges James Baker and George Shultz – he’s still harping on the same tedious theme.

This copper-bottomed, ocean-going shyster Paulson is the kind of Dubya-period  throwback whose advice the Trump administration should avoid like the plague.

As Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson not only failed to predict the 2008 financial crash – the US economy is “very healthy” and “robust” he insisted in 2007 – but it’s quite possible that his encouragement of risky lending while he was at Goldman Sachs helped cause it.

But that’s because Paulson is the very embodiment of the liberal elite which both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump were designed to overthrow.

Paulson may notionally identify as a Republican. Or, at least, he served with a “Republican” administration. But what’s quite evident from his demands for a carbon tax is that he belongs to that shiftless DC/corporatist/bankster elite which couldn’t give two hoots whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in charge, just so long as the elite get to maintain their power base and their revenue stream.

Note how, back in 2014 when he was calling for that carbon tax in the New York Times, he boasted about teaming up with Tom Steyer (arch-liberal hedge funder, creator of the NextGen super PAC) and Michael Bloomberg. These men are not conservatives.

What they are is crony capitalists. They are the embodiment of almost everything that America voted against when it voted for Donald Trump.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Ronald Reagan Would Have Hated this Stupid ‘Conservative’ Carbon Tax Idea

Joe Raedle/Getty Images, Rusty Kennedy/AP Photo

Donald Trump should pursue a regressive, counterproductive, pointless tax policy to deal with a non-existent problem because it’s “what the Gipper would have wanted.”

Yeah, right.

What the late Ronald Reagan is actually doing right now, I strongly suspect, is reaching for the celestial sickbag over this absurd proposal – endorsed by, amongst others, his former Secretary of State George Shultz – that President Trump should bring in a “carbon tax” in order to “combat climate change.”

Obviously the New York Times is very excited about this proposal because it thinks it’s a sign that conservatives are seeing the light:

A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.

The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.

Mr. Baker is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, the senior adviser to the president, and Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, as well as Ivanka Trump.

Nope. What this story actually does is remind us of one of the main reasons why Donald Trump – and not any of his more Establishment rivals – ended up winning the GOP nomination: because the GOP Establishment had drifted so far away from the conservative principles they were supposed to uphold that they might just as well have been Democrats.

According to Baker: “I’m not at all sure the Gipper wouldn’t have been very happy with this.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

NOAA Scandal Gives Trump the Perfect Excuse to Drain the Climate Swamp

DOMINIQUE FAGET/AFP/Getty

So NOAA deliberately fiddled the climate data to hide the “pause” in global warming in time for the UN’s COP21 Paris talks.

Really, this whistleblowing revelation couldn’t have come at a better time for Donald Trump.

In the field of energy and climate, President Trump has said that there is a massive swamp that needs draining.

But his efforts are being resisted at every turn by all those lying scientists, bent politicians, rent-seeking businessmen, and Soros-funded activist groups who  insist: “What swamp? What crocodiles? What leeches? Nothing to see here!”

What the whistleblowing NOAA insider John Bates has just done is prove beyond reasonable doubt what some of us have long claimed: that from NASA GISS and NOAA across the pond to the UEA and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, the world’s leading temperature data sets have been hijacked by climate activists and abused to advance a political agenda.

Here at Breitbart we smelt a rat from the moment NOAA released its dodgy, “Pause-busting” study two years ago.

As we reported, with perhaps a hint of snark, in “‘Hide the Hiatus!’. How the Climate Alarmists Eliminated The Inconvenient Pause In Global Warming” the paper seemed to have been produced by two alarmist shills at NOAA – Tom Karl and Thomas Peterson – with the express purpose of confounding sceptics in the run up to Paris.

The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening. And how did Karl et al. notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialised scientific technique called “getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.” Essentially, this technique involves making adjustments to the raw temperature data (sound familiar?) and discovering – lo! – that the sceptics were wrong and the alarmists were right all along. Karl’s paper makes much of the fact that the methods used for gathering sea temperature data have changed over the years: in the old days it used to involve buckets; more recently, engine intake thermometers. Hence his excuse for these magical “adjustments”. Apparently (amazingly, conveniently), the measurements used since 1998 have been “running cold” and therefore needed correcting in a (handy) upward direction in order to show what has really been happening to global warming. Once you realise this – global warming turns out to be as real and present and dangerous as ever it was.

In October 2015, we followed up with a story headlined: “NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover Up Since Climategate.”

This reported on how NOAA had refused to give up its documents in response to a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who also smelt a rat – and just needed some raw data to prove it.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Liberal Mega-Donor Tom Steyer Gives up on Climate Change (Because No One Cares…)

steyer
AP

Tom Steyer – the hedge fund guy with the annoying tartan tie – has decided to quit green advocacy politics and move“beyond climate change” in order to campaign on something – anything – that people actually give a damn about.

“We want to know what matters most to you, and what should be done,” he pleads, desperately, in a new video.

Let us pause for a moment and savour the man’s absurdity, chutzpah and brazen hypocrisy.

Here is a guy who, for the last decade, has been telling us that climate change is the most important issue of our time.

That’s why he spent millions of his personal fortune in the last two election cycles promoting liberal causes and supporting Democrat candidates: in order – as  he puts it on the website of his NextGenClimate SuperPac – to “prevent climate disaster.”

So what exactly has happened to make this great green philanthropist change his mind?

Did the planet stop warming? [well yes, actually, it pretty much did for the last 20 years, but that’s another story…]

Did mankind suddenly see sense and abandon the selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle which has caused carbon-dioxide to reach levels unprecedented in the age of humans?

Did the mighty political power of all the nations who met in Paris to secure a climate deal in December 2015 result in an agreement so watertight and effective that the world was saved from the clutches of ManBearPig?

Nope. What happened was that this shyster opportunist – as I reported here, part of his vast fortune comes from his earlier investments in Big Coal – has simply reached the very expensive conclusion that no one gives a damn about the greenies’ imaginary climate problem.

Read the rest at Breitbart.