Obama’s Useful Idiot Jonathan Chait Declares Paris Climate Talks a Massive Success

Let me show you, with reference to Chait’s article — excerpts from which I’ll put in italics, with my gloss below — what I mean.

This weekend, leaders from 196 countries approved the first global agreement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions in human history. The pact is a triumph of international diplomacy shared by diplomats across the planet.

The agreement is non-binding, carries no penalties and is entirely voluntary. That’s why everyone signed: because it meant nothing — not because any diplomatic skills were necessary.

Obama’s climate agenda has lurked quietly on the recesses of the American imagination for most of his presidency. It is also probably the administration’s most important accomplishment.

That last sentence is probably true — but only because from Syria to Russia to Obamacare to Benghazi to Common Core to the proliferation of divisive #blacklivesmatter identity politics lunacy, everything else on the administration’s watch has been an even bigger fail.

Melted glaciers cannot be easily refrozen

Five Ice Ages say you’re a fool.

extinct species cannot be reborn

Jurassic Park

flooded coastal cities are unlikely to be rebuilt

Current rate of sea level rise — about 5 inches per century. You think, what, that in 500 years’ time when the seas have finally reached the bottom of people’s shorts, they won’t have figured out a way of dealing with the problem?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

BBC’s Green Gestapo Punishes Presenter for WrongThink

Quentin Letts, the censured journalist, has described his experiences here. He likens it to being airbrushed out of one of Stalin’s photographs: one minute, his documentary – about the Met Office – was freely available on the web; the next it had been written out of history. (But you can still read the full transcription here)

And all because some of the people he interviewed said a few disobliging – but perfectly accurate – things about the way Britain’s state-funded meteorological organisation has been hijacked by climate change alarmists.

In his piece, Letts chooses to be mildly amused by the BBC’s high-handed response to his journalism.

Meanwhile, the BBC top brass held meetings about my allegedly scandalous programme.

Apparently we should have done more to explain the science of climate change. There was a danger that listeners were ‘misled’ by my interviews with Mr Lilley and Labour MP Graham Stringer, who argued that the Met Office were ‘excellent’ at short-term forecasts but ‘very poor’ at climate and medium-term predictions.

I was on the naughty step. That was the last I thought of the matter until last month, when I received a long document from the BBC Trust — a draft of an official inquiry into my misdeeds, complete with a conclusion that there had been a ‘serious’ breach of BBC rules on impartiality in my programme. I was given a few hours to offer any comments before the finding was likely to be made public.

The report, which must have cost thousands of pounds to prepare (rather more than was spent on our programme, I’d wager), included news that from the outset of the production process it had been agreed that we would never touch on climate change.

Er, hang on, chaps. No one ever told me that. Why on earth would independent journalists accept such a stricture? Why should climate change be given such special protection?

Read the BBC Trust’s 20-page report into the incident, however, and you begin to appreciate why it was that George Orwell modelled his Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four on the BBC. Letts’s analogies to Stalin’s Soviet Union, you realise, are only slightly overdone.

Here, for example, is the entire department responsible for Lett’s programme being ordered to attend a re-education camp:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Neither Fox News nor Donald Trump Are Going to Come for You with an AK, Whereas…

If I wanted to follow their example and ramp up the ludicrous rhetoric, I might almost go so far as to say that these people are more dangerous than Islamic State.

Obviously I don’t believe that. But I do believe that this is exactly the kind of useful idiocy which strengthens the Islamists’ hand, not weakens it.

I personally think that Trump’s proposed Muslim embargo is silly, counterproductive, unjust and unworkable. But I’m still glad he said it because – as I suspect was his real intention – it so perfectly illustrated the massive gulf between where most ordinary people are on the subject of immigration and the Islamist threat and where our increasingly remote and complacent political class are.

If Trump’s proposals are “extreme” then how exactly would you categorise the current do-nothing policies being championed by most of the Western world’s political leaders from Barack Obama to David Cameron and Angela Merkel?

I’d suggest that policies which involve imposing tens of thousands of displaced citizens from Islamist hellholes like Syria and Libya on the reluctant populaces and creaking welfare systems of Western liberal democracies are about as extreme as you can get. They are, in fact, a form of tyranny.

This is why every time Trump says such things his popularity ratings soar. Some applaud him because he’s saying exactly what they believe themselves. Others – of which I’m one – applaud him because though we may disagree with the details of his policy, we’re so grateful to come across a politician – much as Nigel Farage is in the UK – who doesn’t mince his words, doesn’t hold the electorate in contempt, and is actually prepared to speak truth to (impuissant) power.

We have been here before.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Politico Trolls for Paris Climate Talks, ‘Praises’ George W. Bush

Top trolling, Politico!

Well, nearly.

Unfortunately, Politico’s snickering reporters can’t resist giving the game away with gleeful asides like: “That may come as a shock considering modern-day Republicans are bent on derailing the Paris negotiations and overturning pretty much all of Obama’s green agenda.”

No, actually it doesn’t come a shock. The shock would be if, for the first time since January 2001, the progressives finally found something for which George W Bush wasn’t to blame.

Anyway, according to Politico’s laboured, convoluted theory, George W Bush is to blame/thank for next week’s Paris talks because of what his negotiators agreed at an earlier UN climate conference in Bali in 2007. WARNING: the following “explanatory” paragraph is so boring and worthless I seriously don’t recommend you read it because you’ll want to gouge your own eyeballs out with a fork.

For the first time ever, countries of all shapes, sizes and economic means pledged to pony up commitments to address global warming. The agreement came with a very wonky sounding name — the Bali Action Plan — and it provided only a very rough outline of where future negotiations would need to go. But what the Bush administration helped create in Bali stands to this day because it eliminated perhaps the biggest political albatross blocking major action in the United States and around the world on international climate policy: Finally, fast-growing developing countries like China, Brazil, India and South Africa were on record saying they would submit cleanup plans of their own.

Pathetic. Here’s what actually happened at that Bali conference in 2007.

It was attended by 15,000 politicians and activists from 180 countries, most of whom — led by Al Gore, fresh from picking up his Nobel peace prize in Norway — saw it as their main purpose to jeer and whine at the US for having failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol ten years before.

In Bali, the US position remained much as it had been at Kyoto — that the US would not sign an agreement to cut its emissions unless fast-growing economies like India and China agreed to do likewise.

Eventually, under enormous pressure, the US negotiators reached  a classic fudge: no mandatory cuts would be agreed — but there would be more conferences in the future.

In other words, with a gun held to their head by 179 UN member states, the US negotiators — not George W Bush, who didn’t turn up — reluctantly took the line of least resistance and agreed to kick the can down the road.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming Caused Hitler

This novel theory, first reported on in an American newspaper in 1941, has just resurfaced in the wake of claims by John Kerry and others that climate change was responsible for creating ISIS. Researchers were naturally keen to discover whether there was any precedent for such “global warming” related idiocy. And indeed it turns out that there was.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Salon: Paris Was Wearing a Short Skirt

This time the preening apologist for terror is one Patrick L Smith, Salon’s “foreign affairs columnist” and a “longtime correspondent abroad, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune and The New Yorker” as well as “an essayist, critic and editor”.

His piece is headlined:

We brought this on ourselves: After Paris, it is time to square our “values” with our history
The West’s behaved horrifically in Middle East for decades. We can’t be surprised by Paris. Let’s look in a mirror

Smith has certainly stared long and hard into the mirror. And it’s clear he’s infatuated with what he sees.

You can tell from the (cackhanded attempt at) grandiloquence of his opening sentence:

Another horrific attack emanates from the shattered, shredded Middle East into the beating hearts of Western civilization.

And from priceless passages like this:

“Is this a September 11 for the French?” my other half asked as we watched the news last night. “Let there be no question,” I replied.

Yep, because it’s all about you, isn’t it, Patrick? You’re kind of like Gore Vidal would have been had been wiser, better connected and more fantastically opinionated and pleased with himself.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

We Need to Talk About ‘Dr’ Jack Monroe’s Breasts…

I know that as an ex-lesbian-turned-self-declared-trans-activist this probably isn’t what she wants to hear from a middle aged cis-gendered male.

I know she’s not a real doctor, it’s just an honorary title given her by some barmily PC university  and has no more validity than the title I’m about to insist you use with me from now on, viz. His Sublime Magnificence The God Emperor Lord Delingpole VC DSO and bar.

I know she wasn’t christened Jack – it’s just a name she invented for herself because she didn’t like the sweet, more feminine her parents gave her, Melissa.

And I know that everything I’ve said may violate her safe space, as she’d probably call it, or as I’d call it, seriously get on her tits.

But it’s hardly my fault, is it? She started it. If Dr Jack Monroe didn’t want people to start obsessing about her breasts, then she really shouldn’t have published an article claiming “to have been awake at night researching a double mastectomy on the internet.” Nor should she have mentioned how enormous they were – double-Ds, apparently – nor how much pleasure they apparently gave those girlfriends lucky enough to enjoy them when she was still a practising lesbian.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Feed Jessica Valenti to the Sharks: She Has Fought for It; She Has Earned the Right

Except, on this occasion, it’s not a gay, attention-seeking bitch (or “modern feminism’s Voldemort”, as he’d probably prefer to style himself) who is trashing the sisterhood but one of their own – a journalist called Emily Hill, who argues that what was once a “genuine crusade against genuine prejudice has become a form of pointless attention-seeking.”

Needless to say, the girls with the scowl, the nose-rings and the unshaven armpit hair are unimpressed.

Says Lucia Lolita:

I’m taking this as satire. It gave me a good laugh.

Sniffs MirandaDobson:

Utterly generalizing and narrow minded. It’s articles like this that show why we still need feminism.

And a saucer of milk for AliceS:

It’s good of the Spectator to publish undergraduate essays.

What most annoys them, I imagine, is that the article is grounded in pesky facts:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Andrew Breitbart: RIP | James Delingpole

March 2, 2012

Andrew Breitbart, who has died aged 43 (Photo: AFP/Getty)

I keep going back to @andrewbreitbart‘s Twitter feed, still unable to believe that one of my conservative heroes has dropped down dead at the age of just 43. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised: Breitbart did enjoy a voraciously Type A lifestyle – smoking, drinking and burger-scoffing like there was no tomorrow. Which, sadly, for this big-hearted, generous, witty, rumbustious, intelligent, fearless father-of-four there now isn’t.

Like PJ O’Rourke, Breitbart was one of those rare types who manages to make conservatism look both fun and cool. A journalist, blogger, polemicist and founder of the Big Hollywood/Big Journalism/Big Government right-wing US blog stable (under the umbrella Breitbart.com), Breitbart’s greatest speciality was lefty-baiting. One of his favourite techniques was simply to turn up at lefty rallies with a camera crew, film all the snarling abuse he got and then put it up on his website by way of demonstration of just how snarlingly vile, sanctimonious and devoid of intelligent argument the liberal-left tends to be most of the time.

He also knew how to use Twitter as a devastating weapon against the enemy. It’s a simple technique which I’ve since copied.

Breitbart, you were the Achilles of the Right. (And boy did you know how to find the Left’s Achilles’ heel.) We shall miss you greatly!

UPDATE

I’d just like add how delighted Breitbart would have been if only could have seen the despicably vile examples of trolling insensitivity and crude ranting a celebratory blog written just hours after his death has managed to attract. It would have confirmed everything he always said about the sick psychopathology of the liberal-left. Thanks trolls! Breitbart is laughing at you from heaven.

Related posts:

  1. Andrew Breitbart’s War Comes to Britain
  2. Why you don’t see Hamas firing rockets on TV
  3. Celebrating Your Inner Crapness
  4. The BBC: Al Gore’s UK propaganda mouthpiece

One thought on “Andrew Breitbart: RIP”

  1. Suefehr says:5th April 2012 at 6:14 pmYeah, when are they going to release the autopsy results? For that matter, when are we going to see the videos that Andrew Breitbart said he was going to release just hours before he “died”?

Comments are closed.