Rees-Mogg Proves He’s Ready to Lead


If there’s one politician Donald Trump absolutely has to meet on his trip to the UK this summer, it’s Conservative backbench MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Though the two men are oceans apart in terms of style and personality – the Jacob being the quintessential English gentleman; the Donald not – what they both possess in spades is the most extraordinary, winning frankness. They would, I’m sure get on like a house on fire. Indeed, with a fair wind, they would make the greatest U.S. president/UK prime minister double act since the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

That’s because they tell it like it is. In common with Thatcher and Reagan, they are not afraid that speaking their mind might get them into trouble. They genuinely believe that what they have to say is right and true. So why would they need to hide their views behind a wall of obfuscation or virtue-signalling cant, like all the beta politicians do?

Read the rest on 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.

Remember, Mrs May, You’re Prime Minister Not Tess of the D’Urbervilles

There are those – like me – who think that discussions should be used to enhance the Special Relationship and to help fast-track the bilateral trade deals President Trump is so keen to arrange with Britain.

And then there are those, such as this columnist in the Guardian, who appear to believe that Theresa May should spend the time discussing her vagina.

Not literally her vagina, perhaps. But you know what I mean. What this Guardian hack and Channel 4 news and the usual feminazi suspects and rent-a-gob female MPs generally are arguing for is that Theresa May should waste official business time parading her “gender” and trying to score points off the Donald by showing how heartily she disapproves of his alleged misogyny and sexism and locker-room banter.

For a nasty moment earlier this week it looked like Theresa May was actually going to accede to this ludicrous interpretation of her priorities, which seemed to demand that she should consider herself a woman first and the British Prime Minister only second.

Asked in an interview about President Trump’s “misogynistic and racist remarks,” May replied: “I’ve been clear about those areas where I feel some of the comments he has made were unacceptable. The whole point about [a special relationship] is that we can sit down and be very frank with each other about what we think.”

This was over-interpreted by the Mail to produce the headline: “Cut out your sexist insults, Mr President: Theresa May prepared to use first summit to tackle Trump’s abuse of women… as 2 million march in protest.”

Since then, though, May has given every indication that she intends to take a more mature and sensible approach to the encounter.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

God, I’m brilliant!

Like my esteemed colleague Dan Hannan, I have a pathological aversion to posting up videos of myself on my blogs.

In this case, however, I feel I must make an exception. It’s not often you get to appear on Uncommon Knowledge being interviewed by the mighty Peter Robinson. (Our subjects: Climategate; Watermelons; the imminent collapse of Europe)Peter Robinson is the uber-poised, uber-intelligent, uber-civilised (well he did go to Ch Ch) commentator, broadcaster and former Reagan aide who as a young man scripted the “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Brandenburg Gate speech in Berlin in 1987. He’s the co-founder of the US conservative website Ricochet which contains some of the most brilliant writing in the entire blogosphere and fabbo podcasts too including one mysteriously called Radio Free DelingpoleHe’s also a fellow of the Hoover Institution – an island of immense conservative soundness set in a vast ocean of liberal sanctimoniousness at Stanford (aka “The Farm”) University, in Palo Alto, capitol of Silicon Valley, in the People’s Republic of California. His Uncommon Knowledge series is pretty much the most distinguished political discussion programme you’ll see on TV because – thanks to Peter – it still exudes that otherwise vanished gravitas which used to be a commonplace in the days of Face to Face or Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation.Normally, Peter interviews hommes serieux like  Thomas Sowell , outspoken MEP Daniel Hannan, and the late great Christopher Hitchens.Hell, though, Robinson’s too smooth by far and it’s about time he did some proper slumming.

Related posts:

  1. I’m on a cruise with lots of rich, conservative Americans. And it’s brilliant
  2. British Gas boss announces brilliant new scheme to make Britain even more expensive and ugly
  3. Global Warming: the Guilty Men
  4. Miliband’s brilliant plan to combat climate change: ‘We’ll export unicorns to China’.

2 thoughts on “God, I’m brilliant!”

  1. Nige Cook says:17th December 2011 at 11:36 amWith all due respect, James, God already KNOWS you are brilliant, so you don’t need to remind Him in the title of a blog post. You will start sounding a little bit arrogant to the lefties unless you make a big acting scene of being more humble and diffident.

    Also, Dan Hannan MEP speaks his mind in videos, amusing the lefties like the brown man:

    But the Uncommon Knowledge interview IS brilliant.

  2. Vincent Jappi says:25th December 2011 at 3:06 pmRon Paul accused of being “raaaaaaacist” for allowing THIS to be published in his name?

    “The Ron Paul Political Report, 1992

    “The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.

    “Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too enraged to pick the victim’s pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores targeted by the mob because they “exploited the community,” i.e., sold products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay.Worst of all, we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal anarchy.

    “In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt’s, a jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

    “Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians.

    “The criminals who terrorize our cities–in riots and on every non-riot day–are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against “The Man.” And “The Woman.’ A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): “I hate you, white honkey.” And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I’ve never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

    “But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is “Eurocentric.” They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it…”

Comments are closed.

Lefties Have Got away with Feeling Superior for Too Long — Let the Fightback Begin

July 18, 2010

I was at a debate at the Institute of Economic Affairs last week when the speaker next to me — a preening, prickly chap with a moustache and hugely self-important manner — took it upon himself to apprise the assembled throng of the most extraordinary fact: apparently, James Delingpole is nowhere near as good at delivering Ronald Reagan quotes as Ronald Reagan was.

‘As I can testify from experience,’ he added, impressively, ‘having heard Reagan speak on several occasions.’

‘Gosh!’ I thought to myself. And again ‘Gosh!’ I’m often taken aback when complete strangers decide to have a go at me personally in debates.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Was John Lennon a secret Reagan Republican?
  2. Climategate: What would the Gipper do?
  3. Life’s too short to be nice to Lefties
  4. Are lefties incredibly stupid or just plain evil?

10 thoughts on “Lefties have got away with feeling superior for too long — let the fightback begin”

  1. Eric Smith says:18th July 2010 at 2:34 pmDelingpoleYou are starting to sound like Alan Bastard’s rude father. Worse, you are degenerating into the British Anne Coultard and that, in my opinion is exactly what we don’t need. The reason the welfare state still exists post Mandelson and Thatcher is to facilitate the accelerating transfer of wealth from poor to rich without the rich being murdered in their beds. Layers of bureaucracy are actually a form of protection for big business (from start ups).

    It is ironic that your public school sparring partner, George Monbiot is probably miles to the right of you. He is an extreme right wing statist, you are an extreme right wing libertarian. It is also ironic that global warming / carbon trading is a gigantic corporate operation, initiated by Enron that you oppose and he supports.

  2. James W says:19th July 2010 at 4:02 amThe fundamental reasons why I hate the left are two-fold;1. as you say, they assume moral authority from the fact that historically they supported the poor, the exploited, the sick and the disenfranchised………..who with a heart would not have supported Labour’s main ideals 1918 to 1950?

    Labour’s problems – particularly from 1990 onwards stem from the fact that there is no longer any oppression and poverty in Britain………everyone has the vote, everyone gets the calories they need (the blue collar classes are largely obese), everyone has access to education, healthcare, everyone has warm homes, television, mobile telephones, internet access and foreign holidays……….there is equality in the dynamics of employment and discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and sexuality has been outlawed and there is a massive level of social protection…….the question of rights and prosperity are thus relative.

    Thus, Labour have a huge problem in defining their purpose – they have none as the socialist agenda has been achieved in full. Basically Labour is all dressed-up and has nowhere to go.

    Which brings me on to the second reason I loath the left.

    2. their propaganda machine stifles truth, individual freedom and peoples’ opportunities to make progress.

    Labour is facistic in nature – the individual must place all his/her trust, faith and adoration – not to mention money – at the feet of the party elite and swallow the shibboleths of the Labour creed……..the class war…….greed and a lack of concern go hand-in-hand with capitalism…..Labour is the only party that cares… the only party with moral authority… and is the only party that never EVER makes mistakes – and if they do, they should be forgiven because they were made with the best of intentions.

    Absolute loyalty is expected…….and that means putting the state’s needs before those of the individual…….and because the beatific ends always justify the means the party will trash any opposition with ruthlessness and if necessary brutality – onward socialist soldiers!

    Faced with a culture that does not comply – why, they will dilute it, denigrate it, destroy it and build a new one more to their own liking.

    Of course the party elite are not bound by any of the rules and principles that they impose on the plebs – they are free to accumulate wealth, advantages and accolades and of course perpetuate their influence by nepotism.

    The Left is bankrupt, both morally and spiritually……..there time has been and gone, they need to wither and die.

    The Gillian Duffys of Britain have been ripped off big-time – Boxer has retired to his field to find it is surrounded by a massive steel fence patrolled by compliant thugs and vicious dogs, but there is no grass in it and half of the field has been ear-marked for a shiny new school and community centre.

  3. John of Kent says:19th July 2010 at 10:52 am“James W says:
    July 19, 2010 at 4:02 amThe fundamental reasons why I hate the left are two-fold; -snip-”

    I agree with everything you posted! very sensible and insightful analysis as to why labour serves no purpose anymore. Actually, you missed one huge point, under the Bureacratic dictatorship that is the EU, no political party in the UK now serves any purpose. Except, maybe UKIP.

  4. James W says:20th July 2010 at 9:28 amJohn of KentUKIP are mostly nutters though aren’t they? Saying that I did give Farage £50 to help him beat that little twat Bercow – not that it did much good.

    The main point is why will Cameron – apparently so keen on the plebiscite on matters of constitutional importance – not hold a referendum on EU membership?

    After all what is the point of voting on how a sovereign government is to be elected if the elected government has no sovereignty over which to govern?………….If you get my drift.

  5. Alec Y says:20th July 2010 at 7:59 pmThere is no point to any other party except UKIP. Yes exactly, the trouble is getting the message across to the masses. What annoys me are people like Dan Hannan who pretend to be eurosceptic yet remain in the Tory party.
  6. John of Kent says:21st July 2010 at 9:41 amI don’t think UKIP are nutters! BNP yes, but UKIP no. Read their policies on their site- very sensible stuff.I would say the three main parties are suffering under a massive delusion for swallowing the AGW scam hook line and sinker. Therefore the Con-Dems and the Labs are the nutters! And it is a sign of insanity – not standing up to the Eurocratic dictatorship that rules our lives.

    It is insane to want to stay un the EU and to follow all the lunatic carbon reduction policies when there is no need to reduce carbon emmissions. I would therefore say that the UKIP are perhaps the only sane party!

    You are right though, our elected government has no power as it has all gone to the EU, they merely pass EU dictates. And the EU is not democratic.

    Therefore, from your own argument, to preserve democracy the only sane vote has to be for the party who would get us out of the EU.

  7. James W says:21st July 2010 at 2:39 pmJoK,What you say is right. However, the fact remains that UKIP members are most certainly not full plates of chips.

    Look at their leaders…………Kilroy-Silk for a start, then Farage nearly goes and kills himself in some ham-fisted stunt.

    Hannan is a very smart bloke…….the rest are just talkative blokes from the golf club……and they cost the Tories the election……….or I suppose you could say Cameron’s refusal on the EU vote did.


    I’d say that they need to enter coalition with the Con-Dems………absolutely anything to keep the left out.

  8. John of Kent says:22nd July 2010 at 2:05 pm” 6.I’d say that they need to enter coalition with the Con-Dems………absolutely anything to keep the left out.

    I agree with that, but don’t believe everything you read in the (mostly liberal-lefty) media that you read about UKIP. Kilroy silk left the party years ago and Farage’s accident was, well just an accident as far as I am concerned. The media do anything they can to smear UKIP.

    Where the Tories have gone wrong is they need to adopt UKIP policies. I did not vote for the Tories because their policies were weak! I will not vote for a party that adheres to the Anthropogenic Global warming/ climate change theory.

    UKIP speak out against both the EU and AGW. If the Tories had the UKIP policies, I would vote fot them, however they have sickeningly positioned themselves just slightly to the right of the Lib Dems, hence the “Con-Dems” alliance. I have little faith in this government, on the things that matter I don’t see them being any better than labour! ;-(

  9. SamG says:23rd July 2010 at 1:11 pmA completely unrelated pointThe left in Oz

    Over 95% above-the-line voters will give legislative power away because of their acquiescence to personality politics.

  10. Mike Paterson says:27th July 2010 at 10:42 pmJames, you don’t blog frequently enough. Maybe you’re on your summer hol.

Comments are closed.

Climategate: What Would the Gipper Do?

Climategate is a Conservative issue.

Conservatives believe in a small state. The Climategate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to expand it.

Conservatives are pragmatists who believe “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But Al Gore’s AGW agenda is about spending vasts sums of public money on a problem than doesn’t exist.

Conservatives are empiricists, with no time for idealistic fantasies about how much better the world could be if only you tortured human nature enough. That’s why they instinctively distrust the shady machinations of all those scientists, agitators and politicians who insist Global Warming is a serious threat while failing to present sufficiently convincing evidence.

So I’ve a lot of time for the latest proposal from the US that all future Republican Party candidates should first pass a Ronald Reagan test.

The Gipper understood it, perhaps more clearly than any Conservative before or since: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem”, he said.

So I don’t think we need be in any doubt where the Gipper would have stood on AGW. Nor what he would have thought of Benedict Arnolds like the eight Cap and Traitor Republicans who helped the House of Representatives pass the biggest tax increase in US history – aka Cap and Trade – last Summer. Nor yet of the even more nauseating South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham who, though allegedly a Republican, has been collaborating with John Kerry to push this utterly disastrous, economy-destroying measure through the Senate.

Luckily we can be pretty confident that of what is going to happen to these RINOs next time they come up for election. The same thing that is about to happen to the leader of Australia’s conservative party the Liberals, Malcolm Turnbull.

But what of Cameron’s Conservatives? I’ll discuss that in another blog. The thought is too depressing and besides I think if too many US readers read my thoughts on this subject they might well be tempted to abandon what little faith they had left in the future of this benighted isle. Or possibly – and I know that this is what I’d do if I had control of America’s red button – nuke us out of pity and despair.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  2. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  3. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’
  4. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!