Obama: When All Else Fails, Blame Dubya and the CIA

Did you hear about the captured Russian gunship pilot shot down in Eighties Afghanistan? (If you’re of a squeamish disposition, I’d skip to the next par). First they gave him tea; then they gave him heroin, then they chopped his foot off, then they raped him; then, once he’d recovered from the first amputation – nurtured of course by traditional Pashtun hospitality – they raped him some more, before chopping off another of his limbs. And so on – nice, nasty, nice, nasty – until they had tired of their plaything and granted him the mercy of death.

The only detail of that true story that I’m not sure I’ve got exactly right is when they administered the heroin: was it before or after the amputations? But I don’t think anyone familiar with Afghanistan would doubt its essential veracity. Similar stories come out of Helmand every day: girls having acid thrown in their faces for attending school; school teachers being hung, drawn and quartered or crucified for having the temerity to teach girls or disobey the Taliban. It’s just how the Afghans are: tough on human rights; tough on the causes of human rights; definitely not the kind of people you’d ask to babysit your kitten while you were away on your summer hols.

President Obama: palpably upset and concerned at being forced, much against his will, to blame his predecessor for EVERYTHING.

So how come this message appears completely to have eluded the current President of the USA? Has none of his advisors read Kipling? Or the first Flashman book? Or heard or read a single thing about Afghanistan or the bad stuff that happens there? Only President Obama appears to have got it into his head that what the Afghans are really crying out for now to make everything better is for the US to launch an inquiry into how the human rights of certain captured Taliban might have been abused in November 2001 by an Afghan warlord Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum. To whit, he killed the lot of them – 100s, if not 1000s and buried them in a mass grave.

Now, POTUS has promised to launch a full investigation into the incident – for reasons of course which have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA and therefore, by extension, of the Evil Bush Administration. (Hat Tip: Jake Tapper)

“If it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that,” said Obama.

Really? Of course, one is saddened by the terrible fate administered to those peace-loving Taliban by the horrid Gen Dostum; of course, it is a grievous pity that they are no longer around to blow American, British and Canadian boys to pieces with IEDs or throw acid at schoolgirls or mutilate schoolteachers. Yes, it goes without saying that this is not the way Western forces ought ever to be encouraged to treat their prisoners.

But the point surely here is that these prisoners weren’t in the hands of Western forces. They were in the hands of an Afghan general who found an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. And isn’t this, after all, the thing the Allied coalition is supposed to be encouraging in Afghanistan right now? We have, after all, come to accept after eight years of near-fruitless slog that we’re not going to win total military victory, let alone transform Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy. So where’s all this nonsense suddenly coming from that the US’s most urgent priority there is to investigate the killing of Taliban  by a non-American in the chaos and mayhem immediately following 9/11? (And incidentally if killing Taliban – plus sundry innocent civilians – is really such a problem, oughtn’t Obama to be investigating himself?)

Surely it can have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Obama’s poll ratings are falling, his economic policy is failing, unemployment is rising, his universal healthcare plan stalling, his cap n trade running into serious opposition, and his Afghan adventure looking more and more likely to turn into his Vietnam?

Surely a man as palpably noble and decent as Obama would never be so unprincipled as to try – for a second time in three months – to court cheap popularity with his nation’s enemies by undermining his own intelligence services and blaming everything on the CIA and George W Bush?

Related posts:

  1. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!
  2. Where have Action Man’s gonads gone?
  3. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  4. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration

Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. CO2 Is Plant Food

Destructive protectionism

For those of us who still believe in logic, reason, empiricism, rationality, commonsense, economy reality and our inalienable right not to have trillions and trillions of our pounds, euros and dollars flushed down to the toilet to no purpose whatsoever, listening to the Prince of Wales’s pronouncements on “man made global warming” is becoming an increasingly trying experience.

ManBearPig: the world’s deadliest threat. Well, if you’re Prince Charles

In the Spectator today, I interview an Australian geology professor called Ian Plimer whose brilliant new book – Heaven And Earth – is rightly being hailed as the one that is going to nail once and for all the crazy myth that man’s contribution to “climate change” is remotely significant, let alone something we should worry about or waste money trying to stop.

As Professor Plimer observes with characteristic Aussie bluntness: “CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.”

Yet so many of the ruinously expensive policies being formulated on our behalf by everyone from Barack Obama to EU president (and former Maoist) Jose Manuel Barroso to Ed Miliband to (God help us) David Cameron’s Conservatives are based on the scientifically groundless urban myth that human generated CO2 (quite minuscule, anyway, compared with the quantities of greenhouse gases volcanoes belch or even cows fart) is the most dangerous substance on earth.

Prince Charles is fond of telling us that we only have 100 months left to save the earth. (Apparently down to 96 now, or so he claimed in his recent Dimbleby lecture). But I’d say the time we have left to save the world is quite significantly less than that. Not from the perfectly natural process of climate change, of course, but the far far greater threat of climate change alarmism.

Unless those of us with more than half a brain cell unite and act soon, the earth is going to fall prey to  the most destructive, expensive, suicidally pointless taxation and regulation and protectionism in global economic history. We simply cannot afford any longer to allow the likes of the Prince Of Wales, Al Gore, NASA activist James Hansen, Lord Stern and their amen corner in the mainstream media to go on pushing their ludicrous scare story unchallenged.

Right now, out there in the real world, are numerous genuine ecological challenges that urgently need addressing: the decline of fish (thanks European Union fisheries policy!); pollution; diminishing water tables; deforestation; overpopulation; and the great eco-disaster that are bio-fuels. The Quixotic quest to arrest “climate change” – something that has been happening for 4,567 million years regardless of man’s input – is a silly and expensive distraction.

What’s particularly galling about the most outspoken supporters of climate change taxation and regulation is that many of them either are rich enough not to be affected by it or – worse – stand to make vast fortunes as a result of it.

The Prince of Wales is a case in point. When you’re on a salary of £18 million, as he is, you’re probably not going to be bothered overmuch by tiny details such as your gas and electricity bills doubling because of green taxes on carbon emissions. You’re not even going to mind, that much, that if Barack Obama’s new $7.4 trillion cap and trade tax on carbon emissions is introduced the global economic recovery is going to be set by a generation. Indeed, it’s probably very much in the Prince’s interests that we should all be rendered so poor that we can’t even afford to run our cars any more. It will leave Britain’s roads free for Charlie to pootle about as freely as he wishes in his bio-ethanol-powered Aston Martin.

Poop! Poop!

Related posts:

  1. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  2. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  3. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’

 

City Bonuses Make a Comeback but Recession Never Left

June 28, 2009

‘Bab!” is the new toast in the City champagne bars. That’s banker-speak for “Bonuses are back.”

Perhaps you may have read about it in the papers. “Oh, good,” you’ll have gone, as you cancelled your annual holiday in the Med, scrapped the children’s riding and judo lessons and changed the mince on your grocery order from Premium Aberdeen Angus to Budget Extra Fat and Donkey Gristle.

“I’ve been feeling the pinch quite a bit this year,” you’ll continue, “what with the negative equity and losing my job and the sky-rocketing bills. So how utterly marvellous to know that Henry Red-Braces in the big house up the road can still fund his heli-skiing jaunt to the glaciers of the Andes.”

If this is starting to sound like the sort of rant you’d more usually associate with the Guardian, there are a couple of things I want to make clear. First, some of my best friends are bankers – my little brother, too – and by no means do I hate any of them so much that I wish them to die in agony, covered in pustular sores. I fully recognise that they have virtually no social life; that they work long hours; and that, yes, they do deserve some reasonable level of compensation for their arid, joyless toiling.

Second, I am not an anti-capitalist. Au contraire. It is my firm belief that one of the very worst things to emerge from the financial crisis is the glib, poisonous, Leftist, Franco-German canard that somehow “capitalism is to blame”. If the capitalist system had been left to its own devices, we’d all be out of this mess by now. Heavy-handed government intervention (mortgages for the unsuitable; artificially low interest rates; bail-outs etc) has much more to do with it than Gordon Gekko-approved greed.

But just because all this is so, it doesn’t let bankers off the hook entirely. Sure, they didn’t bring about this new Great Depression, but they did gleefully devise all those tricksy financial instruments that have made the crisis so long and so deep. They all knew that the system had grown so warped and inflated that it was little more than some giant Ponzi scheme. And still none of them had the moral courage to blow the whistle; still they kept their snouts in the trough.

So what, we might reasonably ask, has so dramatically changed in the City that these troughers have earned the right to be paid huge bonuses again? Have the banks now paid back all that bail-out money that propelled us into the ranks of the world’s most indebted economies? Nope – nor will they do so for many years to come.

Is the pool of available City talent now so small that only by offering the most insane bonuses can any banks be sure of securing decent staff? Hardly. Are the green shoots of recovery bursting forth with such vigour that only a fool would fail to bet on massive growth by 2011? No, no and thrice no. In fact, with a modest 50p spread bet, which I reckon will make me £500 by Christmas, I’m banking on quite the opposite.

Look at the shops. Look what’s happening to your friends. Does anything at all in your realm of experience suggest the recession is even halfway over? Of course not. The only place those green shoots exist is in the bankers’ imaginations.

How did they get there? Well, in order to make money, bankers need extreme peaks and troughs, and if those peaks can only be made by manipulating the markets and telling the odd porkie pie, that is what a greedy pig
must do. When – and only when – a real recovery begins, the bankers will start to earn their bonuses. Until then, they should starve like the rest of us.

Related posts:

  1. Dizzee Rascal speaks up for the City. Probably.
  2. If ever we get out of this economic mess, it’ll be thanks to City AM – not the Financial Times
  3. If I could go back in time to my Oxford days, I’d warn myself against idolising Cameron
  4. Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!

Cap and Trade: Which Part of ‘We Can’t Afford It’ Doesn’t Obama Understand?

Obama's crazy new Bill will do nothing to stop this

But they still don’t produce as much hot air as Al Gore…

Wakey wakey America: nightmare day is here. The day when the House of Representatives votes on probably the most pointless, damaging, wrong-headed and suicidally dumb piece of legislation since…

Well I was going to say Prohibition, but even Prohibition had a certain twisted logic to it. (You know: “Daddy, why does your breath smell funny? Why do you keep hitting Mom? Why’s there no money for food again this week?” etc. I’m not saying I’m persuaded by this argument but at least you can concede the Temperance movement had one).

So that must mean then that the Climate Bill – aka Waxman-Markey after the two, rather sinister-looking representatives who wrote it – being pushed through the House today is quite simply the worst piece of US legislation in living memory. And possibly beyond.

Why? Well at the cost of the biggest tax increase in American history, it will achieve precisely zilch.

(Actually, not quite zilch. There are one or two people who are going to be doing very nicely out of it, from the Libtard apparatchiks and Algore fellow travellers who’ve invested in the right carbon-trading companies to all those vested interests in the Mid-West who have been bought off with the inevitable pork barrelling concessions designed to ease the bill’s awkward passage.)

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation the Waxman-Markey bill –  whose centrepiece is a tax on carbon emissions, often known as “cap and trade” because it sounds innocuous and no one understands what it means – will by 2035 reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. (That’s more than 6 times the projected cost of President Obama’s ENTIRE universal healthcare programme).

But the misery doesn’t end there:

“In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million.”

“Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.”

And how exactly will the world benefit from this swingeing tax on the stuff every one of us breathes out every minute of day?

“According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.”

There’s ‘no debate on carbon pollution’ jeopardizing the planet, claims President Obama, who clearly gets all his information from the liberal broadcast media and the dead tree press, both of which for reasons known only to themselves cleave to the Al Gore “Anthropogenic Global Warming” meme like cognitive dissonant rats to a sinking ship.

Out here in the real world, meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer of us who want any more of their money of wasted on this bizarre eco-fascist fantasy. It was an exciting and novel distraction in the good old days when we still felt rich and a bit guilty for being rich and wanted to devise new ways of punishing ourselves for our (perceived) eco sins. But not any more. We haven’t the money to bribe the Third World to reduce its carbon emissions; nor are our economies nearly strong enough to absorb the burden of green taxation and zealous  and intrusive green legislation.

What’s more, the science is increasingly with us. Today I shall be praying with all my heart that Waxman-Markey dies the death it so fully deserves. So too will everyone else in the world who values liberty, a healthy global economy and plain common sense.

Enough ManBearPig already! The beast must be slain!

Related posts:

  1. Bloody marvellous Aussies kill carbon emissions bill
  2. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  3. Welcome to the New World Order
  4. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?

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.

Memo to the FT: Neda Agha Soltan Did Not Die in Order to Foment Anti-Israeli Propaganda

Memo to the FT: Neda Agha Soltan did not die in order to foment anti-Israeli propaganda

The killing of 27-year old philosophy student Neda Agha Soltan on the streets of Teheran – filmed and posted on YouTube – has rightly become a focal point for Iran’s democratic protests against the tyrannical clerical regime. But what, pray, does it have to do with the fictionalised death of a Palestinian boy who wasn’t murdered nine years ago by Israeli security forces?

A great deal if you read this extraordinary report from the Financial Times, whose reporter clearly believes considers the link so vital and overwhelming as to constitute the main part of the story.

Here is how the FT’s report begins:

“The footage of a Palestinian man being shot dead next to his 12-year-old son, Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah, by Israeli forces in Gaza in 2000 has been etched in the minds of many Iranians, as state television has continually replayed the images to highlight the ‘Zionist regime’s brutality.’”

Only in the second paragraph does the reporter get round to mentioning the assassination of this perfectly innocent – and, sadly, very real – young woman by a pro-government militiaman as she spoke to friends on her mobile phone:

“Now, the Islamic regime itself has become the subject of similar allegations at home and abroad after gruesome footage of a dying young woman during the suppression of an opposition protest on Saturday was released on the internet.”

This corruption of a tragic, moving and very newsworthy story with so tendentious and misleading an intro is a disgrace, not least because it completely distorts reality and history.

If the “Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah” story really has been etched into the minds of many Iranians, that’s only because they are victims of a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli propaganda story which has since been exposed as a complete lie in a court libel action.

As Melanie Phillips and others have comprehensively demonstrated the film footage of a 12-year old lad (not his father, as the FT reports) being deliberately shot by Israelis in a street battle was faked. This hasn’t, of course, stopped it being believed as gospel truth throughout the Muslim world and used to justify everything from the second Palestinian intifada to the beheading of Daniel Pearl.

The Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah blood libel, in other words, represents exactly the kind of vicious, destructive, Islamist extremism which poor Neda Agha Soltan died trying to prevent – not encourage.

Hat-tip: Tom Gross

Related posts:

  1. A little light Islamist propaganda to liven up your Sunday
  2. The BBC: Al Gore’s UK propaganda mouthpiece
  3. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.
  4. Welcome to the New World Order

 

Dumbing Down: The Awful Truth

I know we still have a couple of months before the GCSE results come in but already I can make a confident prediction: Britain’s 16-year olds will be proved with a record number of A and A* grades to be the brightest 16 year olds in the nation’s history.

Any commentator who dares to use unhelpful phrases like “grade inflation” will be dismissed by the current Schools Minister (presuming Gordon Brown can find any MP still willing to serve under him as far hence as August) as an ‘elitist snob bent on undermining the very real achievements of our hardworking children and their hardworking teachers who have done so much to position Britain at the forefront of international league tables of academic excellence, comfortably beating Afghanistan, Chechnya and Sudan, and only a notch or two below such well-known scholastic hot-spots as Burkina Faso, Albania and Somalia.’

Meanwhile, here is some recent research comparing difficulty levels in Maths papers in the last four decades.

1. Teaching maths in 1970

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.

His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?

2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?

3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?

4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Maths In 2005

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.

Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.

All right, these are actually made-up examples from a joke website, but can anyone spot any major difference between the satire and reality? Have a look at the joke in full at this site. It goes on to satirize health and safety legislation, Government incompetence and the rise of Islamism. If it weren’t all so depressingly true, you’d almost find it in your heart to laugh.

Related posts:

  1. Television: Weekly shockers
  2. Channel 4’s Jon Snow on Gaza: fair and balanced, anyone?
  3. Does the Queen know the truth about her Archimedes screw?
  4. David Cameron at Oxford University: the truth

 

Green Jobs. What Green Jobs?

They call him The Terminator. And not unreasonably so – for Terminate is exactly what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done to the Californian economy.

Remember how, not so long ago, the Golden State used to boast that if it split from the rest of the US it would become the world’s fifth biggest economy? Not any more. With unemployment at over 9 per cent (and rising), a business exodus more frenzied than the great wildebeeste migration, and a dollars 41 billion hole in its finances, California is on the verge of becoming the first state in US history to be declared bankrupt.

But hang on just a second. Wasn’t this exactly the kind of economic debacle that was supposed NOT to happen under Arnie’s take-no-prisoners stewardship?

Isn’t this why, in the early days, they called him The Governator: because he was going to “cut up the credit card”, slash  red tape, high taxes and anti-competitive business regulations, slim down the bloated public sector and turn California back into the lean mean fighting machine it used to be in the days of Ronnie Reagan?

Well yes. That was the idea certainly – and it was one that persuaded quite a few of us at the time. Sure Arnie had his repellant aspects – not least, as Clive James put it, the fact the he resembles a “condom stuffed with walnuts” – but, at least, we thought, he was our humourless, monosyllabic Austrian SOB and not the enemy’s.

As actors went, we thought, he wasn’t one of those Tim Robbins, George Clooney, or Alec Baldwin types whose first move on taking the governorship would probably be to turn half of California into a giant welfare park for the homeless and released death row prisoners, and the other half into a ginormous ice rink for endangered polar bears. Arnie, we thought – and he was, after all, campaigning on a Republican ticket – would be a proper no-nonsense Conservative.

So where did it all go wrong? The kindest interpretation is that Arnie is but the hapless victim of a state so irredeemably left-wing, union-dominated and bureaucratised, that he couldn’t change its ways even if he wanted.

Like France – which each day it more closely resembles – California is caught in a classic socialistic bind: it can’t afford the welfare state, but it can’t imagine life without it. Having started with the best of intentions, the theory goes, Arnie realised he cared more about being popular than he did about giving his voters the economic cold shower that might have rescued them from their statist stupor.

At best, then, Arnie is a moral coward. He had the political capital early in his governorship to clean out the Augean mess of California’s Jabba-the-Hutt welfare state and, like Tony Blair in Britain, he funked it because he preferred being liked.

At worst, though, Arnie is something much more dangerous than that: a deluded fool with the power to do real harm. Consider his green policies. In 2006 California signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming measures of any state in the US. And perhaps they’re working – certainly the freak snow storms which visited London last month and are now sweeping Washington DC suggest someone somewhere is doing something right to bring on the new ice age – but the effect on California’s economy has been disastrous.

The killer has been the State’s forthcoming “cap and trade” measures, which will cost Californian households around $23 billion in increased electricity bills and impose strict limits on businesses regarding the amount of  CO2 they emit (with hefty fines for exceeding it). This is why so many businesses are fleeing California (and why unemployment is so high). The last thing they need in a global depression is to find themselves hamstrung with needless extra costs which their competitors don’t have to pay.

Schwarzenegger’s nimble response to this crisis? To go into indestructible replicant mode and plough on regardless. “I recommend very strongly that we move forward,” he said recently. “You will always have people saying this will lose jobs.”

No, Arnie. Not just people saying you will lose jobs. People ACTUALLY losing jobs. Thousands if not millions of them. Under your governorship. As a result of green regulation that you personally introduced.

And where California leads, unfortunately, the rest of America follows. The tax and spend, eco-fascistic policies which have proved so disastrous in California are about to be applied wholesale across the US by President Obama. Copied in Britain too by David Cameron’s Tories, if the Spectator is to be believed.

Arnie, you great big dumb schmuck, you have a hell of a lot to answer for. And I don’t just mean Last Action Hero and Kindergarten Cop.

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts
  3. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  4. Rogue trader in $38.6 billion ‘green jobs’ fraud

 

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?